According to the Transparency International Georgia, the Communications Commission is threatening critical television stations.

Transparency International Georgia released a statement about the above.

“On 6 March 2026, the Communications Commission of the Ivanishvili regime issued a statement openly threatening broadcast media outlets critical of Bidzina Ivanishvili and the government of “Georgian Dream,” declaring that it would fully enforce the repressive legislative amendments adopted last year against independent media which entails, as a sanction, the imposition of a fine, the suspension of broadcasting, or the revocation of the licence.

This statement is widely perceived as retaliation by “Georgian Dream” for the sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom on the pro-government and pro-Russiaon propaganda television channels Imedi and POSTV, which are loyal to the Ivanishvili authorities.

According to the statement, the Commission will “put into practice” the norms established by the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting and the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters in the area of content regulation, “so that the objectivity of broadcasters can be assessed through appropriate procedures and according to a high legal standard.”

The statement also notes that although “these acts confer upon the Communications Commission the obligation to ensure compliance with objectivity standards in the media,” the Commission has, for almost a year, “only responded to complaints and has not itself initiated administrative proceedings against broadcasters under the same law.”

On 1 April 2025, the Parliament controlled by “Georgian Dream” adopted two packages of amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, which clearly contradict the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia and by international human rights law.

a) Financial restrictionsThe purpose of the first package is to cut off sources of funding from international donors to critical broadcast media outlets, which already face an extremely limited advertising market and therefore confront an existential threat.Specifically, the first package of amendments prohibits broadcasters from receiving direct or indirect funding from foreign sources in any form, including:• monetary funds• other forms of material benefit• equipment• training programs• media development programs, and others.b) Content-based restrictionsThe second package significantly expands the Communications Commission’s ability to exert administrative pressure on independent broadcasters through regulation of media content.The requirements relating to the accuracy of facts, fairness, and impartiality have been substantially expanded:• It is prohibited for a news program to cover information reflecting political or other types of conflict, or current public policy issues, on the basis of the broadcaster’s personal attitude or opinion.• Expressing a position in support of or against any political party, public or religious association, or other interest group within a program is declared impermissible.• Authors of editorial programs are required to present a broad spectrum of opinions to the audience, avoid distortion of facts, and prevent misinterpretation of differing viewpoints.• Hosts of editorial programs are prohibited from using their position to disseminate their own views in a manner that could compromise the impartiality of the program.c) Risk of arbitrary enforcement and double standards• These provisions empower the Communications Commission to interfere arbitrarily in the editorial policies of broadcasters under virtually any pretext, which will inevitably lead to censorship or at least self-censorship.• The vagueness and lack of foreseeability of these norms also enable the Commission to apply double standards: treating broadcasters critical of the government with full severity while showing leniency toward pro-government propaganda outlets.• For example, the Commission may treat any minor factual inaccuracy by a government-critical media outlet as a violation of the law, even though news is a perishable product and scrupulous verification of every detail may often complicate — if not render impossible — the timely reporting of news.• Even broader opportunities for interference arise in cases concerning the alleged “distortion of opinion.” Any interpretation of another person’s opinion could be considered a distortion, despite the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which facts are subject to verification for accuracy, whereas value judgments, or opinions, are not.• d) SanctionsIf a violation is established, the Commission may impose fines on broadcasters amounting to 0.5%, 1%, or 3% of their annual revenue, depending on the circumstances, and may also suspend or revoke a broadcaster’s license.

e) Expected consequencesThe full enforcement of these norms may lead not only to self-censorship but also to the closure of independent broadcast channels. It should be noted that even prior to these explicit threats, due precisely to the above legislative amendments and the generally repressive environment in the country, around 20 regional independent media outlets ceased operations in 2025.

3.The Commission itself linked its threats to British sanctions on pro-government propaganda channelsThe Communications Commission openly stated that the enforcement of the repressive legislative norms adopted last year — which, according to the Commission itself, have not yet been fully applied — is connected to the inclusion of the Ivanishvili government’s loyal propaganda channels Imedi and POSTV on the United Kingdom’s sanctions list.

Thus, with striking candor, the Commission itself acknowledged that the full activation of repressive laws against critical media amounts to nothing more than retaliation — a vendetta by the authorities against independent media — in response to the United Kingdom’s decision to sanction the propaganda channels of “Georgian Dream” for their anti-Ukrainian messaging and their appeasing stance toward the aggressor state”, reads the statement.