"Lelo – Strong Georgia" calls on the Public Defender to present a legal position regarding the lawsuit seeking to have political parties declared unconstitutional

Giorgi Sioridze, one of the leaders of "Lelo – Strong Georgia," stated that the initiative to ban opposition parties constitutes an action aimed at restricting the political choices of citizens and runs counter to democratic principles.

Speaking at a briefing today, Sioridze emphasized that the involvement of the Public Defender of Georgia—and the presentation of their legal position—is crucial in the process concerning the potential banning of political parties.

"We call upon the Public Defender of Georgia not to remain on the sidelines of this process, but rather to exercise the authority granted by the Constitution and the law to present a legal position," Sioridze declared.

According to his assessment, the issue of banning political parties extends beyond the political activities of opposition organizations; it concerns the fundamental rights of citizens, their democratic choices, and the constitutional order. According to Sioridze, the Public Defender should assess the constitutionality of restricting citizens' political rights, as well as the potential consequences.

"We expect the Public Defender of Georgia to engage in this process—within the scope of their mandate—and provide a legal opinion evaluating the constitutionality of restricting citizens' political rights and the possible consequences," he noted.

Sioridze stated that the situation is made even more dangerous by the fact that the lawsuit characterizes criticism of the ruling party’s foreign policy as "state sabotage."

In his view, if the Constitutional Court rules in favor of the lawsuit, opposition to the government’s foreign policy course could be deemed an act directed against the constitutional order, while the policy of "not provoking" Russia could effectively become a mandatory norm in the country's political life. "The Euro-Atlantic course, defined by Article 78 of the Constitution, is Georgia’s strategic choice—one linked to the country’s security, freedom, and the prospect of a peaceful future. This choice, however, runs counter to Russia’s imperial interests. If Georgia’s foreign and security policy is evaluated based on whether or not it might 'provoke' Russia, then Article 78 will remain merely on paper, while the actual veto power over the country’s policy will shift to Moscow—to the Kremlin. This would amount not only to a disregard for constitutional principles but also to the subordination of Georgia’s sovereign rights to the interests of an occupying state," stated Sioridze.