Archil Gorduladze: It is a lie that Georgian Dream wants to abolish political parties because of their political cooperation - we are challenging their cooperation in carrying out actions that are harmful to the country and unconstitutional
Archil Gorduladze, Chairman of the Legal Issues Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, responded to a statement by Ana Tsitlidze, a leader of the "National Movement," asserting that the claim—that opposition parties are being banned due to their political cooperation—is false.
According to Gorduladze, the issue is not their political cooperation; rather, it concerns cooperation in actions that are harmful to the country and unconstitutional. Gorduladze notes that while political cooperation is protected by the Constitution, collaborating in activities that run counter to the country's national interests and the Constitution constitutes grounds for banning a party.
"It is a lie that 'Georgian Dream' wants to abolish political parties because of their political cooperation. In reality, we are not challenging the political cooperation of the parties mentioned in the lawsuit. Rather, we are challenging the cooperation of the party mentioned in the lawsuit in carrying out actions that are harmful to the country and unconstitutional. While our Constitution does indeed protect political cooperation, collaboration in activities contrary to the country’s national interests and the Constitution is impermissible and constitutes grounds for banning a party," stated Archil Gorduladze.
Furthermore, Archil Gorduladze asserts that the claim—suggesting that a failure to distance oneself from violent acts is a 'legal absurdity'—is untrue.
According to him, established case law from the European Court of Human Rights (including the Refah and Batasuna cases) dictates that a failure by a party—or its members—to immediately distance themselves from violence is fully attributable to the political entity in question and entails specific legal consequences.
"It is false to claim that failing to distance oneself from a crime is a 'legal absurdity.'
Archil Gorduladze also responded to a statement by Levan Bezhashvili, another leader of the "National Movement," asserting that the claim—that a Member of Parliament’s mandate is automatically terminated upon the dissolution of their party—is false.
According to him, the plaintiffs are seeking only the banning of the parties, not the revocation of parliamentary mandates. Gorduladze clarifies that a Member of Parliament’s authority can only be terminated by a decision of the Parliament itself, and under no circumstances does it happen automatically.
"It is untrue that, as a result of the legislative amendment introduced by our team, a Member of Parliament’s mandate is automatically terminated if their party is banned.
In reality, the mandate of a Member of Parliament is not automatically terminated in the event that a party is dissolved. In this specific case as well, we—the plaintiffs—are seeking only the banning of the parties, without requesting the revocation of the parliamentary mandates of the Members of Parliament. Furthermore, a Member of Parliament’s mandate can only be terminated by a decision of the Parliament itself; it cannot happen automatically," stated Archil Gorduladze.
