Georgian public has sought legal accountability for UNM ‘bloody regime’ for 14 years, ruling party MP

Archil Gorduladze, chairman of the Georgian Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, has claimed Georgian society had been demanding for 14 years a legal assessment of the United National Movement’s “bloody regime” and its affiliated parties, as the Constitutional Court began proceedings on a lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties.

Gorduladze, who is representing the constitutional lawsuit before the court, said the proceedings presented an opportunity to legally assess 22 years of Georgia’s independent history.

He accused the United National Movement and its affiliated parties of undermining the country’s democratic foundations and violating human rights during their time in power from 2004 to 2012, as well as continuing such actions after 2012. He also alleged that they were acting on external instructions and contributing to efforts to undermine Georgia’s independence.

“The 14-year expectation and mandate placed on us will be fulfilled today in this historic proceeding,” Gorduladze said, adding that the Constitutional Court had both a responsibility and a challenge to legally assess the events of Georgia’s independent history and what he described as attempts to establish external control over the country.

He said the ruling team would present all its legal evidence and that the public would be able to follow the proceedings live and recall what he described as harmful and anti-democratic actions by the United National Movement and four closely associated parties.

He added the parties targeted by the lawsuit were either directly involved in unconstitutional actions or supported them.

“We expect the Constitutional Court to make the only legally and logically justified decision - to assess their wrongdoing under the law and ban the parties whose goal is clearly not to secure Georgia’s future,” he said.

Gorduladze argued that the expected outcome would open the way for democracy and end what he described as the “occupation” of the opposition political landscape by the “collective United National Movement.” He added that this would create greater opportunities for people seeking to contribute positively to the country to become involved in political activity.