Nika Gvaramia: In reality, they are banning politicians, the brightest minds of the civil sector, and staunch patriots—educated, hardworking, pro-Western individuals—while they themselves remain: the corrupt and those who revile their own homeland!

"The lawsuit filed today does not merely seek to ban five parties; that is simply the formal framework for what is actually taking place. In reality, they are banning active politicians—that is, individuals—as well as the brightest minds of the civil sector and staunch patriots. They are banning an entire generation in politics: the educated, the hardworking, the decent, those who love their homeland, and those who are pro-Western. They are banning these people, while they themselves—the corrupt and those who revile their own homeland—remain." This statement was made by Nika Gvaramia, one of the leaders of the "Coalition for Change," during the Constitutional Court’s hearing on the lawsuit concerning the banning of political parties.

He used these remarks to introduce a specific motion, which sought to have the materials from the temporary parliamentary investigative commission—submitted by the plaintiff—declared inadmissible as evidence. According to Gvaramia, the investigative commission’s report must be discarded, as it serves as the backbone of a political vendetta.

Revaz Nadaraia, the presiding judge of the Constitutional Court, did not allow Gvaramia to make a political statement and subsequently issued him a warning.

"The lawsuit concerns specific political parties; furthermore, at this stage, it is merely a lawsuit—civil society and other such entities have no bearing on this. I repeat: save your assessments for elsewhere. Now, provide a legal justification; you cannot be treated differently or given special status—the same requirements apply to you as they do to everyone else," Nadaraia stated.

Gvaramia retorted, remarking that this is not a court of general jurisdiction, where a judge can silence political statements by banging a gavel.

"This is an inquisitorial court—one that is both legal and political in nature—but unlike in criminal proceedings, where you might use a gavel to shut down political statements, that is not how things work in the Constitutional Court," Gvaramia noted.

"I do not use a gavel to bring anything to a halt—if taken literally, I haven't used one at all. Furthermore, I do not conflate matters; please address the court in a proper, respectful manner. I am also very capable of distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate conduct, and should you behave inappropriately, the same standard will apply to you. You have been warned," the judge stated.