By ruling not to accept the proceedings, the court told us that the institution of checking the compliance of elections with the Constitution in Georgia simply does not exist even in theory, and its competence is only to check the norms governing elections, that too within the 15-month statute of limitations, - one of the leaders of "Coalition for Change", Nika Gvaramia writes on social network.

According to him, with the said decision, the Constitutional Court declares that the Tbilisi Court of Appeal takes the decision regarding the main constitutional process of the country - elections.

"The Constitutional Court of Georgia was the last link in the circuit of government usurpation, and it happened like that.

According to the decision not to accept the proceedings (as it turned out, 1 week ago), the court told us that the institution of checking the compliance of the conduct of elections (that is, the implementation of norms) with the Constitution in Georgia simply does not exist even theoretically, and its competence is only to check the norm regulating the elections, that too within the 15-month statute of limitations.

With this, the Constitutional Court tells us that the Tbilisi Court of Appeal makes a decision on the main constitutional process of the country - elections.

The main point: it is impossible for the institution to determine the constitutionality of elections to not exist in the country. "Since the Constitutional Court openly got involved in the usurpation of power in the country, the only person who can do it is the President of Georgia, as the head of state (legally) and the only legitimate source of power (in fact)," writes Nika Gvaramia.

For information, the Constitutional Court did not accept the constitutional lawsuits of the President and 30 politicians regarding the recognition of the elections of October 26, 2024 as unconstitutional. The ruling, which was recently published on the court's website, is final and not subject to appeal or revision.

It should be noted that only the judges - Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze and Teimuraz Tughushi - expressed a different position, therefore, the verdict is supported by Irina Imerlishvili along with several other judges. Because of this, Irina Imerlishvili is the object of criticism.