The Constitutional Court of Georgia will hear a lawsuit seeking to ban five pro-Western opposition parties. The hearings are scheduled for October 21–23. The authorities claim they are protecting the constitutional order from forces that threaten it. The opposition and government critics warn of the eradication of political competition and the de facto elimination of the ability to change power through elections. Additional questions have emerged following the early departure of Judge Manana Kobakhidze, who unsuccessfully sought to recuse herself from the case.
What Is Happening and Why It Matters
The Constitutional Court of Georgia has accepted for consideration on the merits a lawsuit filed by Georgian Dream seeking to declare the activities of five opposition parties unconstitutional and ban them. The lawsuit was lodged on September 24 by 88 members of parliament. The case will be heard by a seven-judge plenum of the court. The initial hearings are scheduled for October 21, 22, and 23.
Those facing a potential ban are the United National Movement, the Coalition for Change, Lelo – Strong Georgia, the Federalists, and Gakharia For Georgia. These constitute the country’s primary pro-Western opposition forces, despite notable political and ideological divides among them.
At stake is more than just the potential shutdown of several political entities. If the lawsuit is granted, the consequences will affect their supporters and the prospects of these forces participating in future elections.
Accepting the lawsuit for consideration does not in itself mean the court has found the accusations proven or has already decided to impose a ban. It marks the commencement of hearings on the merits. By law, the Constitutional Court has nine months to issue a ruling—with the final deadline expiring on June 24, 2027.
However, the process has already assumed major political significance. Scheduling hearings across three consecutive days has drawn criticism from the opposition, which contends the case is being handled in an expedited manner. Furthermore, the court’s ruling will come amid an enduring political crisis and deteriorating relations between Georgia and its Western partners.
Why the Authorities Are Seeking to Ban the Parties
In its lawsuit, Georgian Dream asserts that the listed political groups share common objectives and intentions directed against the country’s constitutional order. Among the accusations are the delegitimization of elections conducted in accordance with the Constitution and electoral legislation, as well as the rejection of the will of the people and democratic principles.
Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze previously stated that the primary reason for appealing to the court is that these parties are “inherently unconstitutional.” According to him, this is evidenced by their political record, their activities after 2012, and their current posture. One of his key arguments was the opposition’s non-recognition of Georgia’s constitutional order.
The authorities emphasize that appealing to the Constitutional Court is a statutory procedure, and the final ruling rests with the court. Archil Gorduladze, chairman of the parliamentary Committee on Legal Issues, stated that the ruling party expects a ban on groups it regards as part of a “foreign agency network” and the “cleansing” of the political landscape.
The authorities also connect their grievances to the findings of a parliamentary investigative commission that probed the actions of previous governments, particularly human rights abuses. MP Guram Macharashvili of the People’s Power party—a satellite of Georgian Dream—asserts that the commission’s conclusions are corroborated by victim testimonies, video recordings, and rulings from international courts. In his view, this material provides sufficient grounds to carry the ban on these parties through to the end.
Thus, the ruling elite’s arguments rely on two primary premises: opposition forces pose a threat to the constitutional order, and their conduct must be evaluated in light of their political record and the actions of the former government.
What the Opposition Says
The five parties facing a ban do not form a monolithic political force. They have distinct leaders, programs, and strategies for confronting the government. Their reactions to the proceedings diverge as well.
United National Movement. Ana Tsitlidze, one of the party’s leaders, called the lawsuit legally groundless and argued that the Constitutional Court had already breached constitutional principles by admitting it without a substantive admissibility hearing involving both sides. According to her, the authorities are using the judicial system to eliminate the pro-Western opposition and curtail citizens’ political rights.
“Whether they destroy us early or destroy us late, nothing will change for us. Even if they line us up against a wall and shoot us, as long as we are alive, the struggle for Georgia’s freedom and European integration will not cease! You cannot kill the idea, our fighting spirit, or any one of us! Especially the National Movement! We will not only survive—we will ultimately prevail.”
Tsitlidze also addressed the judges, warning them of their personal responsibility for the decision. At the same time, she left open the question of the party’s attendance at the hearings, stating that a final decision would be made at a later date.
Coalition for Change. Gedevan Popkhadze, one of the coalition’s leaders, believes the repercussions of a ban reach far beyond the fate of individual organizations. In his assessment, the state will effectively determine which political forces are permitted to represent citizens and which must vanish from the political sphere.
“This is not an ordinary decision that will simply reshape the political configuration,” Popkhadze said on PalitraNews. He warned that if banned, the country would drift away from European democratic standards, and elections would cease to be a genuine mechanism for the transfer of power.
Another member of the coalition, Droa! leader Elene Khoshtaria, wrote in a letter from prison that what is happening in Georgia is “not a party struggle, but a struggle for national liberation”:
“I am very glad that the process of banning parties has begun. Not glad about the dictatorship, but glad that both within the country and beyond its borders, dictatorship will be called by its name. In reality, the dictatorship has existed for a long time; politics ceased long ago, freedom ceased long ago, the freedom of choice was stripped away long ago—that is what dictatorship is, not merely the passage of a law formalizing this dictatorship.”
Lelo – Strong Georgia. The party’s Secretary General, Irakli Kupradze, described scheduling the hearings for October 21–23 as an accelerated maneuver. He also linked the early departure of Manana Kobakhidze to the judge’s reluctance to take part in a ruling the opposition deems unlawful. Kupradze argues that the situation reveals internal fractures within the ruling system itself.
Lelo also issued a formal statement on the lawsuit, arguing it reflects the government’s awareness of “losing the support of the majority of the Georgian people”:
“Political parties reflect the will expressed by the Georgian people. Consequently, a party is not an entity alienated from the people. Its voters are an integral part of it. Dissolving a political party means not only abolishing the party itself, but also abolishing the political will expressed by its voters.”
Federalists. Tamar Chergoleishvili, one of the party’s leaders, stated that the group has no intention of participating in a proceeding it views as a farce and a breach of the Constitution. She emphasized that a political party’s genuine strength is determined by public support, not by its formal registration.
“The Federalists do not care in the slightest what Bidzina Ivanishvili decides—whatever he decides, we will use all means to dismantle autocracy on all fronts.”
Chergoleishvili drew attention to the results of the 2024 elections: according to official tallies, four of the five parties now facing a ban participated in the vote and collectively received more than 800,000 votes. In her view, a ban would effectively invalidate the choice made by those citizens.
Gakharia For Georgia. Former Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia called the fast-tracking of the process a sign of the authorities’ fear of losing control over the judiciary. He suggested that the ruling party is rushing to secure rulings before a potential shift in the balance of power within the court.
“This desperate haste points to two things:
- Fear of internal collapse: the regime is terrified of losing its fragile grip on the judicial system and is rushing to make decisions before losing its quorum.
- The total collapse of justice: this is a sham process, railroaded with lightning speed to destroy political pluralism and entrench dictatorship.”
Party representative Ana Buchukuri warned of individual accountability for those judges, prosecutors, and members of parliament who participate in banning political forces.
What the Experts Say: Are There Sufficient Grounds for a Ban?
The central legal question is what actions by a political party could justify such an exceptional measure as banning its activities.
Constitutional scholar Vakhushti Menabde emphasizes that outlawing a party is one of the most severe decisions a democratic state can take. It requires compelling grounds linked to a direct threat to constitutional principles.
“When a party is banned, the political activity that a segment of the citizenry considers legitimate is banned along with it,” the expert explains.
According to Menabde, it is insufficient for a party merely to dispute the legitimacy of the incumbent authorities, criticize the courts, call for the government’s resignation, or hold views the authorities consider flawed. It must be demonstrated that there is a fundamental rejection of constitutional values and an intent to subvert the constitutional order through violent means. Moreover, such grounds must apply to the party itself and its platform, rather than merely individual remarks by its representatives.
European policy expert Kakha Gogolashvili also warns of the ramifications for the democratic system. In his view, genuine elections can hardly be envisioned without the participation of political parties. He notes that in European jurisprudence, banning a party is regarded as an extraordinary measure rather than an ordinary instrument of political contestation.
The German precedent is particularly instructive. In the 1950s, the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party and the Communist Party of Germany were banned there. At the same time, any initiative to ban another political force requires an independent legal assessment: the presence of anti-constitutional rhetoric does not automatically justify a ban. The core issue lies in the evidence, the nature of the threat, and whether the measure is proportional to democratic standards.
This reasoning applies directly to the Georgian case. Even if the authorities have serious grievances against individual politicians or the record of the previous administration, it must be established whether these justify outlawing entire organizations and disenfranchising their supporters.
Manana Kobakhidze: Why the Judge’s Departure Became a Significant Event
Particular scrutiny was drawn to the departure of Constitutional Court Judge Manana Kobakhidze. On October 9, she requested recusal, citing her past political career and public criticism of the National Movement. Her request was rejected, after which Kobakhidze stepped down from the bench.
Manana Kobakhidze was one of the co-founders of the ruling Georgian Dream, had served as the party’s chair, and was a member of parliament. In the past, she had also publicly urged representatives of the National Movement to dissolve the party. In her view, these circumstances could raise legitimate public doubts regarding her impartiality in hearing the current lawsuit.
Georgia’s fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili, described Kobakhidze’s resignation as a sign of systemic weakness, though she noted the judge could have remained in office and expressed dissent within the court.
Eka Beselia, founder of the Justice House, suggested by contrast that Kobakhidze independently chose not to take part in a proceeding she considers hazardous for the country. Constitutional scholar Kote Chokoraia also suggested that the judge was unwilling to associate her name with a ban on political parties.
Menabde suggests that Kobakhidze’s exit may have been linked to internal and external pressure, as well as apprehensions regarding possible international sanctions. In his view, the judge had three options: participate in the ruling, issue a dissenting opinion, or step down. She chose the latter.
International Context and Potential Repercussions
On October 8, the European Parliament adopted another critical resolution addressing Georgian Dream’s efforts to ban opposition parties. European lawmakers voiced concern over the developments and the risks to political pluralism.
The authorities have dismissed such criticism. Parliamentary majority MP Akaki Aladashvili branded the European institutions’ reaction as double standards, citing ongoing debates over a potential ban on the German party Alternative for Germany (AfD). In his view, the lawsuit before the Constitutional Court is backed by legal arguments, and external criticism represents an effort to exert pressure on Georgia.
For European partners, however, the fundamental question is whether the restriction of political rights is necessary and proportionate to the alleged threat. For this reason, the final ruling could carry consequences not only domestically, but also for Georgia’s relations with the European Union.
The political movement “For Georgia” has likewise warned of an escalating crisis. Its co-founder Valeri Chechelashvili stated that the free participation of political parties in elections is essential for normalizing the political process. If the lawsuit is granted, he argues, the political crisis will intensify and Georgia’s international isolation could deepen.
Victor Kipiani, chairman of the “Georgia First” movement, offered a similar assessment. According to him, banning opposition parties would substantially diminish the avenues for political change through elections and heighten the risk of radicalization.
For Georgian Dream itself, the outcome of the process is equally consequential. The authorities maintain that they are acting within the Constitution and protecting the state against forces they deem anti-constitutional. However, should the court grant the petition, it will have to provide a compelling explanation as to why the actions of each of the five parties constitute a threat severe enough to justify such an extreme measure.