He who remains silent lives safely – Georgia’s plan for freedom of expression

Georgia is currently experiencing a worrying development: The government is deliberately restricting fundamental freedoms while continuing to rhetorically commit to European integration. The planned changes to the law on freedom of opinion and expression in particular demonstrate a clear departure from liberal standards.

This interview with Tamta Kakhidze , a lawyer at Transparency International Georgia , offers a rare, clear and unsparing analysis. Kakhidze describes not only how the burden of proof in defamation law will be shifted to the detriment of the defendants in the future—a classic tool for intimidating critical voices—but also how further legislative changes are undermining the independence of the judiciary and restricting media access to trials.

Her comments on state pressure on NGOs are particularly explosive: The Anti-Corruption Bureau is demanding data on those under its protection, who are often themselves victims of state violence. Kakhidze sees this as a deliberate attempt to destroy trust and dismantle civil society structures – an approach she openly compares to Russia's methods.

The interview thus paints a picture of an authoritarian project that simultaneously attacks the opposition, the media, and civil society. It offers readers valuable insights into the mechanisms of political repression, which are enforced not through overt violence but through subtle legal means.

The following text is the complete translation of the interview , unabridged and carefully translated into English. It offers a dense, analytical, and at the same time unsparing assessment of the current situation in Georgia.

Interview with Tamta Kakhidze

On amending the law on freedom of opinion and expression

What do you think about the ongoing changes to the Freedom of Opinion and Expression Act? What do you think about the shifting of the burden of proof to the defendants in defamation proceedings?

We had very good legislation in this area for years. In principle, our law replicated the American standard, which meant we had a much higher standard in favor of freedom of expression. To restrict freedom of expression, the burden of proof lay with the plaintiff. The goal of fines for blocking roads, for example, was to have a deterrent effect.

How real is the risk that the new version will result in critical media and non-governmental organizations ending up in court more often?

As for the General Judicial Procedure Law and the changes to it, this version essentially returns to the pre-2012 version. After 2012, the Georgian Dream party made many positive changes to the law, especially in the first two or three years. One of the first was to open court proceedings that had previously been closed to the public and the media. Photography and video recording were prohibited. This was introduced during the Girgvliani trial because the government at the time didn't want the public to see what a circus was going on in the court system. Therefore, the trials were closed.

After 2012, they were reopened. Media were able to take photographs and film. Now they are being closed again. The goal is obvious: the goings-on in today's court system, especially in the trials of prisoners of conscience and beyond—including in administrative cases, for example, when people appear in court injured after demonstrations and judges still send them to detention for 10-12 days—shouldn't be seen by the public. These scenes have naturally damaged the court's reputation because what really happens has become widely known. And that has nothing to do with justice or an independent judiciary.

The government doesn't want society to see what's happening in the court system now. This is one change they've introduced. There are also many other changes that are lowering the standard of judicial independence. For example, the process of transferring judges has been simplified. Under the National Movement, this was a punitive tool of the High Judicial Council: If a judge's behavior was disliked, they would be transferred from Tbilisi to the regions. Later, the system was changed. Now this process is being simplified again. It is likely that it will again be used as a mechanism of repression against judges who show signs of independence.

The composition of the High Judicial Council has also been changed. This body is the governing body for the judicial system and oversees everything. The number of judges on the council has been increased so drastically that the quota of non-judge members has been de facto eliminated: out of 15, only three remain as non-judges. This, of course, disrupts the balance and is problematic. There are other harmful initiatives as well. The situation in the judicial system has been very difficult for years, and these changes will obviously worsen it further.

How do you assess the initiative to criminalize insults in public spaces? Does this change take into account the freedom of critical expression, especially in the context of social networks?

Of course, this affects freedom of expression. The purpose of this provision… insulting a citizen is punishable in every country, but here it is intended to ensure that the judiciary can function without disruption. For example, no insults should be made during the trial itself that disrupt the proceedings.

If this is interpreted to mean that any critical statement should be considered a criminal offense at any time… for example, if we describe a judge as lacking independence and someone is arrested for it – that's utter nonsense and doesn't happen in any democratic country. That would, of course, be a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and would be recognized as such by the Strasbourg Court.

The problem lies in how they want to define and implement this. That's problematic. Of course, it's a criminal offense in every country for someone to insult a judge during a trial. It's always been a criminal offense in Georgia, too. But the way they're now expanding this provision and the content they want to give it is problematic.

We must be able to criticize judges – because we see what happens in the court system, how absurd the spectacle is: how the judges behave, what the witnesses do.

One example: Judge Nino Galustashvili forcibly assigned defendants public defenders, so-called "reserve lawyers" – a term that doesn't exist in any procedural law. In addition to private lawyers, she also appointed public defenders, who themselves stated that they were actually only there for people who didn't have any defense attorneys. However, the defendants in these trials had several private lawyers and had absolutely no confidence in state-appointed defense attorneys.

If we are not allowed to criticize such incidents, what should we even be allowed to criticize?

This clearly violates freedom of expression. Essentially, this is part of a strategy to achieve respect for the judiciary not through genuine reforms and the dismantling of clan structures and greater independence, but rather by silencing all criticism. Instead of building trust in truly independent judges, they want to intimidate critics and silence those who feel that nothing is fair here and who create fear.

Of course, there are standards for how to distinguish between criticism and insults, where the boundaries of permissible criticism are drawn, and where freedom of expression ends. The Strasbourg Court, and not only there, has extensive practice on this. Our Constitutional Court also has very good case law in this area.

But we see that these standards are not being met here. Many people have already been fined for simply expressing their opinions. This clearly shows that the authorities do not respect these standards.

There is a vast body of jurisprudence on what constitutes an infringement on freedom of expression, what is permissible and what is not. But the government is taking a completely different path. Its goal is repression, silencing, and the disappearance of freedom of expression.

This affects everyone. This deterrent effect is already noticeable. I'm sure many people are already hesitant to speak out because they fear repression, fines, and imprisonment.

The deterrent effect is there—but that's apparently not enough for them. The repression hasn't yet broken the protests in the country. Therefore, they are increasingly tightening their measures to eliminate freedom of expression from public spaces.

How do you assess the Anti-Corruption Bureau's request to your organization and other NGOs to disclose information about their beneficiaries? What is your response and strategy?

At this point, I can't say more than what we've already said in our public statement. We're still waiting for the Court of Appeal's decision—we've filed an appeal. After that, a unified position will be announced. We expect the appeal to be dismissed because the Court of Appeal is even more problematic.

The goal, of course, is an attack on civil society organizations, an infringement on freedom of association and freedom of expression. We speak out very actively, we assume the role of a watchdog – that is the task of civil society organizations. We monitor trials, represent prisoners of conscience, accompany administrative proceedings, and help people so that they are not alone in this system and have support and defense.

The government wants to break this chain. They want people to face the system alone, so that repression against them is much easier to carry out, and they no longer have anyone to support, defend, or accompany them to court. They want to break this protection so that protest can be more easily crushed—I think that's their calculation. They also want to silence and destroy us.

In 2023, this goal became very clear. We had been targeted by the government before, but in 2023, when the so-called "Russian law" was introduced, its goal became very clear—exactly the same as in Russia, where the government introduced such a law and destroyed all civil society organizations in the following years.

The initiative for this law had precisely this goal: to eliminate civil society. This became clear in 2023. Back then, however, civil society was very united and strong, which made it more difficult for the government to enforce the law against us. Afterward, they took even more repressive steps: They initiated the so-called "American Law," then the Grants Law, which meant that no one could receive funds from partners to help people without government consent.

It's clear that the government doesn't care about us helping people. If it's within their power, they will refuse this consent. This law is in the same spirit as the Russian law—it's part of a package, and the Anti-Corruption Bureau's demand to hand over our data is a continuation of this Russian-inspired strategy to silence us, to erase us, so we can no longer help people.

In the dystopian scenario that the Anti-Corruption Bureau gains access to this information – how great is the danger for those affected?

Our beneficiaries are often people who have been oppressed by the state and have sought help from us. Handing over this structured information to the very government agencies that previously oppressed these people is obviously not in the best interest of those affected.

No one has confidence that the government won't misuse this information or use it against these people. If we hand over such data in a structured form, we directly endanger these people.

Furthermore, these people have entrusted us with their information. They have trusted that this information will remain with us. We received this data as part of legal assistance—this is communication between attorney and client. All such communication is protected. No government agency, no court, no public prosecutor's office may access it. We are obligated to maintain this confidentiality, and disclosing it would be a violation of applicable law.

One of the government's goals is to destroy the trust we've built over years of working with people. In addition to physical repression, they also want to destroy this foundation of trust.

If we were to voluntarily betray this trust and pass the information on to government authorities, the trust would be lost.

We have numerous beneficiaries who were victims of torture by GDD security forces during the demonstrations. All of Georgia saw the condition in which Georgian citizens were placed after these protests and how widespread the practice of torture became after November 28. If we were to place such information into the hands of the very actors responsible for this violence, it would be a direct betrayal of these people and would put them in danger.

Do current developments – arrests of opposition members, restrictions on freedom of expression, use of legal means against the media – indicate an increase in authoritarian tendencies?

One of the main principles of authoritarianism is that there can be no opposition and no group that expresses criticism can exist. All criticism must be stifled.

First, it began with the arrest of leaders of opposition parties. This is nothing new for authoritarian systems—of course they would start with it. The reason these people were arrested was not because of substantive issues or because they had actually committed a crime or posed a danger to society.

The reason for their arrest was simply that they did not recognize parliament as a legitimate body. This is the result we have today: opposition leaders are in prison simply because they do not recognize parliament. Yet, recognizing or not recognizing parliament is a constitutional right. In every country, every party can decide whether or not to recognize the legitimacy of parliament. This is a purely political question.

When this political issue is transferred to the legal sphere, as the government has done here, it clearly demonstrates authoritarian tendencies. It is unacceptable to punish an opposition party simply because it does not recognize the government. Their imprisonment is clear proof that we already live in an authoritarian system.

The second target group are critical organizations—and we're not afraid to say that openly. We are clearly the second group being repressed. With this repression, they also aim to destroy the critical space.

The next level will likely be anyone who criticizes this government. They won't stop until all criticism in this country disappears. They clearly want to silence all critics because they can't stand the criticism. They're tired of constantly being confronted with criticism at the international and local levels, on the streets, everywhere. Apparently, they want to eliminate this problem completely.

But once the criticism disappears, I'm convinced that much worse conditions will arise in this country. There is no example of an authoritarian country where society lives happily.

Happy people live in democratic countries where human rights are guaranteed, every person's life has value, and people can express their opinions without fear of being arrested or fined 5,000 lari - which is a huge sum for people in Georgia.

In countries where the state cares about the rights of its citizens, looks after their well-being, and considers their interests, people live happily. If the critical space disappears from this country, Georgian society will find itself in even more difficult conditions.

Do you believe that the work of the “Tsulukiani Commission” serves the goal of political reckoning and the creation of political legitimacy?

Politicians describe this commission as illegitimate – what is the basis for this assessment?

Perhaps their goal was indeed to create political legitimacy—but in my opinion, they failed. They haven't achieved that legitimacy to this day.

Perhaps they simply wanted to facilitate the arrest of opposition leaders—which has already happened because they didn't recognize the new government. That could also have been a goal.

I don't know why they set up this commission, but if their goal had really been what they officially say, they would have had to start with Levan Murusidze.

He is the face of the court system and was associated with the practice of unfair trials for years; he was the judge in the Girgvliani case. If they had been serious about addressing the crimes of the National Movement, they would have had to start with Murusidze. Then perhaps one could have had confidence in their motives. But that confidence doesn't exist. It's clear that they were pursuing entirely different goals—and that's exactly what they're doing now.

What signals is the NGO sector receiving from international partners in this situation? Is there real support?

We have support – just as we have built mutual trust with Georgian society over the years, we have also built trust with the international community.

They do not doubt our sincerity and truth – they are our partners and we constantly feel their support.

Even earlier, when Razhden Kuprashvili granted us the status of an organization with a declared electoral objective before the elections, there was a very swift and sharp reaction from our international partners. Very clear statements were made at the time that this was not correct—and of course, that was completely absurd.

Our sole objective at the time was election observation. We have very strong support from our partners, and we expect this support to continue in the future.