After three days of hearings, the Constitutional Court has completed its consideration of the Georgian Dream MPs’ submission on the President’s alleged violation of the Constitution. The Court will submit its report to Parliament by October 14.
The subject of discussion at the court session was the violation by the President of Georgia of Article 52 Paragraph A of the Constitution of Georgia, which stipulates that the President of Georgia may exercise representative powers in foreign relations and negotiate with other states and international organizations only with the consent of the Government.
The case is precedent-setting: it is the first time that the Constitutional Court of Georgia is considering the issue of impeachment within its jurisdiction.
The President was represented by Tamar Chugoshvili, a former member of parliament from the Georgian Dream list, and Maya Kopaleishvili, a former judge of the Constitutional Court.
Five MPs from “Georgian Dream” were present at the hearing, including the chairman of the party, Irakli Kobakhidze, as well as Anri Okhanashvili, Tengiz Sharmanashvili and Giorgi Kakhiani.
Day Three
On October 5, the Constitutional Court resumed the session on the impeachment of the President.
- During a session, a dispute broke out between the president’s representatives and the chairman of the Constitutional Court, Merab Turava. The disagreement started when the Chair denied one of the president’s representatives, Maya Kopaleishvili, the opportunity to respond to the author of the impeachment submission, Irakli Kobakhidze. Turava stated, “We don’t want duplicate answers, Ms. Tamar Chugoshvili [already] answered the question.” Kopaleishvili stressed the need for equal treatment. In response, Turava defended his actions, stating that he was open to criticism but wanted to avoid repetitive answers during the session.
- Tamar Chugoshvili read Salome Zurabishvili’s message at the session stating that in 2019, while attending the UN General Assembly, the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Zalkaliani had a meeting and discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. According to Chugoshvili, President Zurabishvili learned about this meeting from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres during an official meeting. “What does it have to do with all this? Salome Zurabishvili sent you this, but shouldn’t you know that you should not say all this here? All of this is not serious. We are talking about legal issues, while this is demagogy,” Kobakhidze told Chugoshvili.
- “Impeachment is different from a dispute over competence in that it is also a political process. With the impeachment, 80 deputies declared that they considered the president unworthy of the presidency because of her violation of the Constitution. This was, of course, a political act on our part that we had refrained from for a long time. Of course, it is our duty to convince the MPs that they, like us, will follow the Constitution of Georgia in principle,” Kobakhidze said.
- “If the President of Georgia blatantly violates the Constitution of Georgia, with such approaches, the country, of course, has nothing to do in the European Union, and our response to this was our responsibility to the Georgian society, to the Georgian state”, – said Chairman of “Georgian Dream” Irakli Kobakhidze at the session of the Constitutional Court. Thus, he answered the question of Judge Merab Turava that “the President is recognized as a pro-Western leader according to foreign media, will the initiation and implementation of the impeachment procedure against such a person be harmful to the interests of Georgia at the stage and at the historical moment we are now in?”
Day Two
On October 4, the Constitutional Court resumed the session on the impeachment of the President.
- GD Chairman Irakli Kobakhidze told the court: “The decision to start impeachment proceedings was made after the President’s violation of the Constitution of Georgia took on a systematic character – we no longer consider Salome Zurabishvili worthy of the presidency.”
- Judge Manana Kobakhidze asked Kobakhidze to demonstrate, that his goal was not political reprisal against Zurabishvili. “You gave an example of Moldova yesterday, when the Moldovan government was pro-European, and the president visited Russia. There was an incompatibility between their [foreign policy] courses. In [Georgia’s] case – the declared course of the government is that it is pro-European … What is so dangerous about these actions [of the President], or in terms of their result, which made you come [to the Court] not out of the wish to settle political scores [with the President], but out of extreme necessity? What makes you believe that this person, the President, is unworthy and unfit for office?” Judge noted.
- Kobakhidze responded that the initiation of impeachment proceedings was a political decision. “We have a reasonable assumption that Mrs. Salome Zurabishvili violated the Georgian Constitution in the hope that the opposition won’t support her impeachment at the parliament, but the ultimate goal of the impeachment procedure is that the president […] should leave her post [on her own volition]. This will be our goal, and if the Constitutional Court presents a positive conclusion to the Parliament regarding the violation of the Constitution, all [Georgian Dream] MPs will support the impeachment of the President. This is our political intention,” Kobakhidze added.
- Judge Teimuraz Tughushi asked what a hypothetical presidential candidate should offer to the electorate if she can’t speak at home or abroad. The question implies whether a candidate should remain silent and uninvolved in all matters, suggesting uncertainty about the role of such a candidate and the purpose of the presidential institution.
- In response, Kobakhidze asked a rhetorical question if the president would resign if Georgia were not granted the EU candidacy: “She [President Zurabishvili] will not resign because she is not responsible [for that decision], and if she is not responsible, she should not travel [to the European capitals to lobby for it]. Whoever is responsible [the government] must travel [to Europe] or [Zurabishvili] must, as a minimum, have their [the government’s] consent to do so. That is what the Constitution says,” Kobakhidze said.
- Speaking about the concordance of the government’s and president’s respective foreign policy stances, Kobakhidze said that Zurabishvili’s position on imposing sanctions against Russia remains “unclear,” with the president making “vague and ambiguous statements. ” Aiming to demonstrate, that Zurabishvili’s foreign visits were damaging for Georgia’s national interests, he said that statement made by the President of Latvia after a meeting with Zurabishvili – that Georgia should impose sanctions against Russia – “contradicted the [Georgian] government’s position and was unusual,” arguing that foreign partners had not made such statements after meetings with other Georgian officials for a long time. Also, on this point, Kobakhidze noted that the positions of the government and the president did not match on the issue of recalling the ambassador of Ukraine from Georgia and that Salome Zurabishvili violated the legislation in this case.
- The representatives of Salome Zurabishvili presented the position of Salome Zurabishvili to the court and spoke about the issues raised during her three recent visits to Germany, France, and Brussels. One of the representatives of the President, Tamar Chugoshvili, explained that during the visit to the three countries, the President did not act within the framework of Article 52 of the Constitution – she did not conduct negotiations, did not sign agreements, and did not exercise representative powers.
- The judges inquired why the president requested the government for permission in all other cases and why she did not ask for permission before traveling to Paris and Brussels. According to Tamar Chugoshvili, after Salome Zurabishvili was denied permission to visit Germany, she decided to make the visits within the framework of Article 49 of the Constitution, which states that the president represents Georgia in foreign relations.
- According to Tamar Chugoshvili, during the meetings, the President did not talk about the results of the implementation of the 12 recommendations of the European Commission, and her visit was related to the discussion of geopolitical issues and the European future of Georgia.
- Tamar Chugoshvili and Maya Kopaleishvili were repeatedly interrupted by representatives of the parliamentary majority or by the judges during their speeches.
- Tamar Chugoshvili noted that she had to explain the same issue several times, that Salome Zurabishvili considered the government’s refusal to allow her visits unjustified, she believed that it was intended to isolate her. According to Chugoshvili, the authors of the petition must provide evidence that the president acted in the meetings within the framework of Article 52.
Day One
- At the beginning of the session, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Merab Turava, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the President was not present at the session and asked her representatives whether this meant that the President was showing disrespect to the Constitutional Court since she has no physical impediments.
- Turava said the Court could decide the mandatory presence* of the President at the hearing since her legal representatives may only know the legal side and not the factual details of the case.
- According to the legal representatives of the President, a decision taken to ensure her mandatory attendance would unnecessarily politicize the process. “This is in no way an expression of disrespect on the part of the President, and neither should it be interpreted in this way. This is how the Parliament may interpret it, although I think that the Constitutional Court should not. The President is acting in accordance with the law,” legal representative Tamar Chugoshvili noted.
- According to Irakli Kobakhidze, Chairman of the ruling party, the President should have a different attitude towards the Constitutional Court (i.e. attend its sessions) and toward the Constitution of Georgia. “This is not a political statement. This is my position as a lawyer, as a public official, and I am expressing this position on behalf of the 80 members of Parliament elected by the people,” he added.
- According to Kobakhidze, “It’s a very simple case – the visit required consent, she didn’t get that consent, she went anyway, so the constitution was violated.”
- Kobakhidze tried to argue that by her actions, Zurabishvili showed that she was aware of being in breach of the Constitution in the following ways:
- By asking the government for permission for the visit in the first place, the President recognized she would be in breach of the Constitution if she failed to obtain such permission and went anyway.
- By financing the visit with her private funds, Kobakhidze argued, the President “directly recognized” that the visits were illegal. “If she had spent money from the state budget, in addition to violating the Constitution, this would also be a criminal offense because, according to the legislation, this is an unjustified expenditure.”
- Kobakhidze said that in the last two years, the President had asked the government for permission to travel abroad 38 times, including before the European Commission decided on Georgia’s candidate status in 2022, when she held meetings in Europe with the government’s approval. Chairman noted that these meetings “did not bring any results.” According to him, the President even asked the government for permission to attend the ceremonial visits, showing her understanding that “even visits with less political content require approval.”
- Kobakhdize argued that executive power resides exclusively with the government and is separate from the powers of the President. He also said that according to the revised Constitution, the President is no longer the highest representative in foreign relations, but just a representative.
- The representatives of the President argued that by undertaking the visits to Europe, the President did not exercise her representative powers as defined by Article 52 of the Constitution but instead performed her role in foreign relations in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 49 of the Constitution, which stipulates “The President of Georgia shall represent Georgia in foreign relations.”
President’s Representatives
- Kopaleishvili pointed out that the Court risks becoming a weapon of the political battle of the majority of the Parliament against the President of Georgia. She argued the substance of the current impeachment case against the President was purely political, without any Constitutional or legal basis. “We are all convinced that the petition submitted by the political majority of the Parliament is unfounded, does not meet the requirements for impeachment established by the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court of Georgia, and with all due respect to the Court, I must say that the petition should not have even been accepted for consideration,” Kopaleishvili added.
- Chugoshvili emphasized that the GD MPs do not consider it a violation of the Constitution for the head of state to meet with the heads of other countries or with high-ranking officials inside the country. “There are relations [with foreign officials] that do not constitute the exercise of the representative powers described by Article 52 but still imply diplomatic relations, and we must distinguish them from one another; it will be very important for this case. The President undertakes a series of [diplomatic] contacts [inside Georgia] which, which in their essence, do not require an agreement with the government. At no stage has it become controversial, and was never challenged, by the government of Georgia”. Chugosvhili wondered, why would GD think that the departure of the President from the country would activate Article 52 since it is linked to the substantive type of contacts, not the geography.
- Chugoshvili added that the reception, greeting, and taking of the photos by the host country in accordance with the rules of the protocol cannot be used as proof of the exercise of representative functions. The status of the President of Georgia, regardless of whether she exercises her powers within the framework of Article 49 or 52 of the Constitution, is unchanged. She is the President of Georgia, and, therefore, the protocol is an expression of respect.
The Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Merab Turava, called out Chugoshvili for smiling, when one of the GD MPs made an improvised intervention.
“Ms. Tamar, we didn’t laugh at your speech, we didn’t judge it … You showed irony. Let’s not go far away from the subject in question,” said Turava, to which Chugoshvili replied that her smile “wasn’t about that,” adding, “Should I not smile when MPs answer instead of the government representative? They help the government’s parliamentary secretary summarize and give answers, which makes me smile. They are dictating answers to him,” said Chugoshvili.
“Ms. Tamar, I didn’t have an aggressive attitude towards you; I was just surprised you smiled. Of course, you have the right to do so; we cannot prevent you from doing so. I just thought it was inappropriate at the time,” Turava said.
- Some Constitutional lawyers pointed out that Article 51.3. of the Constitution reads “the President shall enjoy full immunity” and therefore she can’t be forced to be present at the court.
მსგავსი/Related
This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)