Independent group of lawyers condemns judicial reform package as 'power grab' by ruling party

An independent group of legal professionals in Georgia has released a statement responding to the latest package of amendments proposed by the ruling Georgian Dream party to the Organic Law on Common Courts. The group expresses concern that the proposed changes are likely to weaken judicial independence, increase political control over the judiciary, and reduce transparency and public oversight of the court system.

According to the group, the amendments would reintroduce vague disciplinary grounds, such as a judge’s failure to fulfill or properly fulfill their duties, which were removed from the law in 2019 after being used in the past to exert pressure on judges deemed disobedient. The group notes that this provision, if restored, could create risks of arbitrary disciplinary action against judges, as the standard is general and open to subjective interpretation.

The legal professionals also highlight that the amendments would require judges to seek approval from the Secretary of the High Council of Justice to engage in academic or educational activities, as well as for communication linked directly or indirectly to the administration of justice, such as participating in professional development programs. The group points out that these restrictions could interfere with judges’ constitutionally protected right to personal development and professional engagement.

Further concerns relate to the extension of court chairpersons’ terms from five to ten years and the introduction of deputy chair positions in first-instance courts. The group observes that such changes could further consolidate authority within the judiciary’s management, rather than enhancing the independence of individual judges. The proposed reduction in the number of non-judge members of the High Council of Justice is seen as another step that may diminish the role of public representatives in key decisions, including judicial appointments and disciplinary matters.

The statement draws attention to the abolition of the position of independent inspector, whose role in disciplinary investigations has been to provide an initial layer of oversight. Under the proposed changes, these functions would be transferred to the Secretary of the High Council of Justice, a development that, in the group’s view, raises concerns about impartiality in disciplinary proceedings.

The legal professionals also note that the amendments would ease the requirements for judicial promotion by reducing the necessary years of service and removing the obligation to establish promotion criteria. In their assessment, this could risk undermining merit-based advancement within the judiciary.

The proposed changes include provisions that could broaden the interpretation of what constitutes disrespect toward judges, extending potential legal consequences to actions and statements made outside courtrooms and in public spaces. The group points out that this may have implications for freedom of expression and public discourse about the judiciary.

In addition, the amendments would formalize the use of narrow specialization in the Supreme Court, a practice that, according to the group, could facilitate the direction of specific cases to certain judges, potentially affecting the principle of random case assignment.

The proposed legislation would also restrict public access to disciplinary hearings and delay the release of court decisions until they enter into legal force. The group warns that such measures could significantly reduce transparency, given that final decisions in cases may take years to be reached.

Lastly, the legal professionals draw attention to the plan to ban photography, video recording, and broadcasting within court premises except where authorized by the court itself. This would reverse earlier reforms that had opened courtrooms to greater public and media scrutiny.

The group concludes that the proposed amendments, taken together, would undermine judicial independence, reduce transparency, and limit accountability mechanisms, marking a step backward for the justice system in Georgia. The statement was issued as part of the group’s ongoing efforts to support dialogue and advocacy aimed at strengthening the rule of law in the country.