Opposition lawyer questions Constitutional Court’s handling of evidence in party ban case

Maia Kopaleishvili, a member of the Coalition for Change, has criticised the Constitutional Court’s approach to examining evidence in the proceedings seeking to ban five opposition parties, arguing that the parties have not been given sufficient information to prepare their legal responses.

In a statement published on social media, Kopaleishvili said each party should be informed in advance which pieces of evidence relate specifically to it, allowing its representatives to prepare arguments and respond effectively to questions from judges.

She said the court had not allowed her to present her position on the examination of evidence during the 10 November hearing, prompting her to outline her objections publicly.

Kopaleishvili challenged comments made by Constitutional Court members Vasil Roinishvili and Eva Gotsiridze concerning the court’s investigative powers and the examination of evidence through questions addressed to the parties.

Referring to Roinishvili’s remarks, she argued that the Constitutional Court’s inquisitorial powers should not replace the adversarial principle of proceedings. While the court has the authority to obtain and examine evidence independently, she said, this must take place during proceedings with both parties given the opportunity to comment on the material.

She argued that examining additional evidence after judges retire to deliberate, without allowing the parties to express their views on it, would violate the standards governing the examination of evidence.

Kopaleishvili also questioned Gotsiridze’s suggestion that evidence could be examined through questions from judges. She said the constitutional lawsuit did not clearly identify which specific pieces of evidence related to each defendant or indicate which sections of the submitted video recordings required examination.

Kopaleishvili added without such clarification, the parties cannot adequately prepare their responses to questions or present arguments concerning individual pieces of evidence.

She added that the Constitutional Court should have been better prepared for proceedings of this nature and could have introduced a separate section in its procedural rules setting out specific procedures for examining evidence in cases involving requests to ban political parties.

Kopaleishvili said her social media post provided only a brief explanation of what she considered important procedural issues, adding that the subject warranted further discussion.

The Constitutional Court is examining a lawsuit filed by 88 MPs from the ruling Georgian Dream party seeking to ban five opposition groups: Unity - National Movement, Coalition for Change, Strong Georgia - Lelo, the Federalist Party and Gakharia for Georgia.

The plaintiffs argue that the parties' activities are unconstitutional. The opposition groups reject the allegations and have raised concerns about the fairness and conduct of the proceedings.