Kakha Kaladze, the Secretary General of the ruling Georgian Dream party and Tbilisi Mayor, on Wednesday highlighted the “critical need” to reduce foreign influence in Georgia during a recent meeting of the Tbilisi government, following the ruling party’s decision the previous day to override the presidential veto on the controversial foreign influence bill.

Kaladze emphasized that the country “must not alter its fate with baseless arguments” that the legislation, branded as a “Russian law” by domestic actors and foreign allies, contracted European values, especially in the face of “significant challenges posed by external forces and internal opposition”.

Kaladze pointed out that a portion of Georgia's territory remained occupied by Russia and attributed their loss to the previous ruling United National Movement and its “treacherous policies”. 

"What is allowed for France, where a similar law was passed recently, turned out to be forbidden for us," Kaladze remarked. He reminded the audience that part of Georgia's territory was under Russian occupation and criticized the opposition, mainly the UNM, for their role in creating instability. He noted that those policies, while in power between 2004-2012, had resulted in “unprecedented violations of people's rights, the closure of businesses, and the shutting down of media outlets”. 

Kaladze described the current situation as a "sad reality," asserting that the opposition's primary goal remained seizing power and fulfilling the agendas of external entities.

"In light of these challenges, it is vital for Georgia to reduce foreign influence to maintain peace and ensure the stable development of the country. We have no right to change the fate of the country with weak arguments," Kaladze stated. He underscored the importance of protecting Georgia's interests, securing its European future, strengthening independence, and striving for the nation's prosperity. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission earlier this month strongly advised the repeal of Georgia's Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence in its current form. The Commission warned that the law posed “severe threats” to freedoms of association and expression, privacy rights, participation in public affairs, and the principle of non-discrimination.

The Venice Commission expressed disappointment that the Georgian parliament passed the bill in its final reading without awaiting their assessment, despite calls for delay from the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The analysis highlighted the bill’s misalignment with international and European standards, particularly those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Commission determined that the bill failed to meet the stringent criteria of legality, legitimacy, necessity in a democratic society, and proportionality, and it violates the principle of non-discrimination.

The Commission criticized the bill for its potential to stigmatize, silence, and ultimately eliminate associations and media outlets that receive any foreign funding. It warned that the bill could disproportionately impact organizations critical of the government, thereby undermining public debate, pluralism, and democracy.

The Venice Commission specifically recommended that Georgian authorities discard the law's special registration, reporting, and public disclosure requirements for civil society organizations and media receiving foreign support, which include administrative sanctions. It noted that existing Georgian legislation already mandated registration and reporting, including on funding sources, and questioned the necessity of additional regulations for ensuring transparency.

Should current laws be deemed insufficient, the Commission advised considering amendments to existing legislation to align with European and international standards. It suggested that genuine representation activities on behalf of foreign entities could be regulated according to these standards if necessary.

The Commission also criticized the legislative process for the law, noting that it was adopted without adequate public discussion or meaningful consultation, disregarding widespread concerns within Georgian society.