Giorgi Kakhiani: The motions that the opposition has filed so far in the Constitutional Court were legally unjustified - the impression remains that these motions have the aim of stretching out the process in time
The motions that the opposition has filed so far were completely legally unjustified, and the Constitutional Court has also taken the corresponding decisions. The impression remains that the filing of these motions has more the aim of stretching out the process in time than of reaching a specific result, — Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia Giorgi Kakhiani stated in connection with the consideration of the ban on opposition parties in the Constitutional Court.
According to him, the ruling team’s lawsuit “is so strong with evidence and so well-founded from a legal point of view that the opposition will not be able to have counter-arguments.”
“The court already took a decision yesterday on the motion regarding the removal of evidence [from the lawsuit] and refused it. In general, the Constitutional Court process has begun and at first the process concerned issues of recusal, and now we are at the stage of motions. That is, the parties, in this case the respondents, are filing a whole series of motions. We saw that the ‘National Movement’ and the ‘Akhali’ party had such motions, and today other parties will also be given the opportunity to file motions.
Now, when I actually assess these motions, the motions that have been filed so far were completely legally unjustified, and the Constitutional Court has also taken the corresponding decisions. To a certain extent the impression also remains that the filing of these motions has more the aim of stretching out the process in time than of reaching some specific result.
At the same time, I think that the lawsuit is so strong with evidence and so well-founded from a legal point of view that they will not be able to have any counter-arguments. So far we have not heard their position. They know the issues raised in our lawsuit and they know what we are claiming against them. Naturally, at the stage of explanations this will be further clarified if anyone has any questions in connection with this; however, we do not know their position. They could have submitted a response, but they have not done so. In any case, what evidence they have against the lawsuit — we are not yet informed about this. However, I can say that they probably will not be able to have such evidence, so firmly are the counter-evidence against them set out in the lawsuit,” Kakhiani noted.
