Georgia's top court hears lawsuit to ban main opposition parties in latest crackdown on dissent

BATUMI, Georgia — The Constitutional Court in the South Caucasus nation of Georgia began hearings Wednesday on a lawsuit by the ruling Georgian Dream party seeking to ban five major opposition parties, a move critics say would effectively eliminate political competition.

The lawsuit is the latest step in the unrelenting crackdown on dissent that has engulfed Georgia in recent years in response to mass protests that erupted after the government halted talks on joining the European Union.

The authorities have tried to curb the protests, which have raged almost daily since November 2024, with mass arrests, fines and by tightening rules on public assemblies, as well as passing a wave of laws targeting rights groups, nongovernmental organizations and independent media.

Critics say some of the laws were modeled on legislation in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin has harshly stifled dissent.

Protesters gathered outside the courthouse in the Black Sea city of Batumi as the seven-judge panel took up the case against the country’s main pro-Western opposition groups: the United National Movement, Coalition for Change, Strong Georgia–Lelo, the Federalists and Gakharia for Georgia.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the parties’ activities unconstitutional and outlaw them, alleging that they seek to overthrow or forcibly change the constitutional order and undermine Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity. Hearings are scheduled to continue through Friday.

Opposition leaders reject the accusations and say Georgian Dream is using the courts to remove its main competitors before the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2028.

“It’s not only banning political parties,” said Irakli Pavlenishvili, deputy chairman of the United National Movement. “It is the end of democracy for Georgia.”

Georgian opposition denounced the 2024 election

Central to the lawsuit is the opposition’s refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the elected parliament, which the plaintiffs describe as part of a campaign of sabotage.

Four of the five targeted parties collectively won about 38% of the vote and secured seats in the 2024 parliamentary election, according to official results. Georgian Dream won the election, cementing its longtime dominance of Georgian politics.

The United National Movement, Coalition for Change and Strong Georgia–Lelo gave up their seats, saying the election was rigged. Gakharia for Georgia is the only opposition party that remains in parliament, with 11 seats out of 150.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze defended the lawsuit Tuesday, arguing that electoral support should not determine whether a party is allowed to operate and described Georgian opposition as “liberal fascists.”

“What matters is the policies political parties pursue and whether they are inherently unconstitutional,” Kobakhidze said. “That is precisely what we demonstrate in our lawsuit.”

Parties, rights advocates decry the lawsuit as politically motivated

Zurab Girchi Japaridze, a leader of Coalition for Change, said the goal was to prevent opposition politicians from challenging Georgian Dream in 2028.

“They basically want to get rid of all political leaders and political parties that took part in 2024 elections,” he said.

Japaridze warned that if the Constitutional Court sides with Georgian Dream, opposition leaders could end up in prison or exile and hundreds of people who appeared on opposition electoral lists could be barred from participating in politics.

It would mean "that any critical voice, any dissent will be deemed unconstitutional, period,” said Ana Buchukuri of Gakharia for Georgia. She said she believed “that the ban will happen.”

Sandro Baramidze, who manages Transparency International Georgia’s human rights and rule of law program, said the lawsuit failed to establish constitutional grounds for banning any of the parties.

The Constitution allows political parties to be banned for a handful of reasons, including plotting a violent coup or fomenting hatred or hostilities, he said.

“None of these grounds are present in this particular case,” Baramidze said, adding that a ruling in favor of the lawsuit would be “completely arbitrary.”