{"id":30798,"date":"2025-06-03T16:08:47","date_gmt":"2025-06-03T16:08:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/?p=30798"},"modified":"2025-06-03T16:26:05","modified_gmt":"2025-06-03T16:26:05","slug":"georgias-ruling-party-escalates-legal-clampdown-on-opposition-tv-channels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/news-feed\/georgias-ruling-party-escalates-legal-clampdown-on-opposition-tv-channels\/","title":{"rendered":"Georgia\u2019s Ruling Party Escalates Legal Clampdown on Opposition TV Channels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tbilisi, June 3, 2025<\/em> \u2014 The ruling Georgian Dream<\/em> party has initiated formal complaints with the National Communications Commission against three major opposition-leaning television stations\u2014Formula<\/em>, TV Pirveli<\/em>, and Mtavari<\/em>\u2014alleging that journalists and anchors used \u201canti-government\u201d terminology in violation of recent amendments to the Broadcasting Law. A public hearing on these complaints is scheduled for June 5, raising alarms among media watchdogs about growing censorship and shrinking space for independent journalism in Georgia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

New Broadcasting Rules and a Shifting Media Landscape<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In a series of legislative maneuvers since late 2024, Georgian Dream<\/em> has systematically enhanced state control over media. On February 24, 2025<\/strong>, parliament passed amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, broadening the National Communications Commission\u2019s authority to enforce coverage standards. Under the previous regime, self-regulatory bodies within each broadcaster handled disputes over editorial content. The February changes transferred that power to the Commission, allowing any interested party to lodge complaints directly with the state regulator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further clarifications adopted on April 1, 2025<\/strong> extended the Commission\u2019s oversight to include social media content produced by broadcasters. These April amendments formalized which expressions on-air or online now fall under official scrutiny. At the same time, Georgian Dream<\/em> also passed two \u201c\u2018foreign agent\u2019\u201d laws in 2024 and early 2025\u2014on foreign influence transparency and foreign agents registration\u2014plus tightened grant rules, effectively curbing independent outlets\u2019 access to international funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The combination of legal restrictions has hit Georgia\u2019s independent media particularly hard: Mtavari<\/em> TV ceased broadcasting in February 2025 due to financial difficulties, leaving Formula<\/em> and TV Pirveli<\/em> as the two largest opposition platforms still on air. Meanwhile, anti-government protests that erupted in late November 2024\u2014sparked by GD\u2019s announcement to suspend Georgia\u2019s EU membership bid\u2014underscore the broader stakes of media freedom in a polarized political environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

New Complaints: Texts, Terms, and the June 5 Hearing<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

During the first week of June 2025, Georgian Dream<\/em> filed separate complaints against Formula<\/em>, TV Pirveli<\/em>, and Mtavari<\/em>, citing a range of phrases that party leaders deem unlawful. The complaints\u2014each accompanied by a power of attorney signed by Prime Minister and GD chairman Irakli Kobakhidze<\/strong>, appointing lawyer Natia Bokuchava<\/strong> as the ruling party\u2019s representative\u2014claim that journalists failed to distinguish between opinion and fact, violating Articles 54, 59\u00b9, and 76 of the amended Broadcasting Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contested Terms (combined list):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • \u201cillegitimate parliament\u201d \/ \u201cillegitimate government\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cso-called parliament speaker\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201coligarch\u2019s MP\u201d \/ \u201coligarch\u2019s servant\u201d \/ \u201coligarchic regime\u201d \/ \u201cconditions of an oligarchic regime\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cIvanishvili regime\u201d \/ \u201cregime\u2019s city court\u201d \/ \u201cregime prisoners\u201d \/ \u201cregime\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cabduction of people\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cRussification\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cclans in the judiciary\u201d \/ \u201cclan-based justice\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cMP of the pro-Russian regime\u201d \/ \u201cmeeting of the Russian commission\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cthreats of imprisonment\u201d \/ \u201celimination of opponents\u201d \/ \u201crepressions\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u201cde facto member of parliament\u201d \/ \u201cusing a mandate for punishment\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    In addition, one complaint cites a social media post by Formula<\/em> referring to PM Kobakhidze as \u201cthe regime\u2019s prime minister.\u201d By listing these terms as \u201cpersonal assessments\/accusations\u2026not separated from facts,\u201d Georgian Dream demands that the Commission impose \u201cappropriate sanctions within its authority.\u201d The hearing is set to take place on Thursday, June 5, 2025<\/strong>, when the Commission will review the alleged violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n

    Details & Direct Quotes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    From Georgian Dream\u2019s Complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cThe journalist\u2019s phrases […] are personal assessments\/accusations that are not separated from facts. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is an important standard in journalism.\u201d
    \u2014Excerpt from GD\u2019s complaint<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Each complaint references specific broadcast clips and social media posts. In the complaint against TV Pirveli<\/em>, GD objects to language such as \u201cillegitimate government,\u201d \u201cIvanishvili\u2019s regime\u201d (referring to billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili<\/strong>, GD\u2019s founder), \u201coligarch\u2019s servant,\u201d and \u201cde facto MP.\u201d A parallel complaint against Mtavari<\/em>\u2014which suspended broadcasts in February\u2014cites nearly identical terminology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Opposition Reactions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cThis is the beginning of yet another wave of repression against critical media. The TV channels face the threat of multiple fines and financial sanctions, creating a real risk of their broadcasting being suspended. The complaint will be publicly reviewed by the regulatory commission on June 5.\u201d
    \u2014Tornike Migineishvili<\/strong>, TV Pirveli\u2019s lawyer<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cThis is censorship aimed at the final destruction of the media, which is already in an extremely dire financial situation. They will challenge us on every word. This law was designed to dismantle the media.\u201d
    \u2014Vakho Sanaia<\/strong>, Formula\u2019s evening news anchor<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cStraight out of the Orwell book\u2026attempts to control every word in media and to start banning words. [These measures mark] the beginning of a new wave of repression [and] show a sign of weakness of this government.\u201d
    \u2014Salome Zurabishvili<\/strong>, Georgia\u2019s fifth president<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Expert Commentary (Transparency International Georgia)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cIt\u2019s clear why Ivanishvili\u2019s Georgian Dream is suing critical TV channels. He doesn\u2019t want the public to know the truth about what\u2019s happening in Georgia. If you analyze exactly which news content the ruling party \u2018fears,\u2019 you\u2019ll see a pattern:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Investigative reports into ruling-party corruption\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Critical assessments by NGOs or experts\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Coverage of protests or human rights violations\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Reporting on election violations\u2026<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. Satire or sarcasm aimed at the government\u2026
      In short, the ruling party has developed a manual for \u2018safe media\u2019: Don\u2019t mention government accountability, don\u2019t report on corruption, don\u2019t cover protests as justified, don\u2019t point to systemic interference, and be \u2018impartial,\u2019 meaning\u2014stay silent.\u201d
      \u2014Eka Gigauri<\/strong>, Executive Director, Transparency International Georgia<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
      \n\n\n\n

      Analysis: Reactions, Civil Society Concerns, and Implications<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Civil Society & Media Advocacy<\/strong>
      The Media Advocacy Coalition<\/em>, a network of press-freedom NGOs, described GD\u2019s complaints as \u201clegal repression\u201d and urged the Commission to uphold journalistic standards rather than rubber-stamp political vendettas. A European Parliament resolution has also singled out Kakha Bekauri<\/strong>, head of the Communications Commission, for potential sanctions as part of Bidzina Ivanishvili<\/strong>\u2019s \u201cnetwork of enablers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Wider Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Chilling Effect:<\/strong> With words like \u201cregime,\u201d \u201coligarch,\u201d or \u201cclan-based justice\u201d now subject to potential fines or license suspension, journalists risk self-censorship. Investigative reporting on corruption, analyses by NGOs like TI or ISFED, coverage of protests, and even satirical commentary may be deemed unlawful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Financial Vulnerability:<\/strong> Fines can be calculated as a percentage of a station\u2019s budget, a critical threat when opposition outlets are already strapped for cash.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Evolving Enforcement:<\/strong> Broadcasters once handled complaints internally; now a state regulator can unilaterally impose penalties. That shift transforms every viewer phone call, every Facebook post, into a possible infraction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Political Context:<\/strong> Since opposition MPs boycotted the 2024 elections and were expelled from parliament, Georgian Dream<\/em> has effectively been able to pass legislation without meaningful parliamentary opposition\u2014fast-tracking restrictions on media and civil society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      EU Accession Impact:<\/strong> These developments occur against the backdrop of stalled EU membership talks. International partners have warned that media freedom is a litmus test for Georgia\u2019s democratic credentials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n\n\n\n

      As Georgian Dream<\/em> ramps up legal pressure on Formula<\/em>, TV Pirveli<\/em>, and Mtavari<\/em>, Georgia\u2019s independent media landscape faces a critical juncture. The National Communications Commission\u2019s June 5 hearing will test whether new broadcasting regulations serve the public interest or merely shield the ruling party from scrutiny. For opposition outlets already struggling financially, the threat of fines or license suspension could spell the end of critical voices on Georgian television.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Looking ahead, media organizations must decide whether to comply\u2014risking self-censorship\u2014or challenge the complaints in court, at the cost of legal fees and further political backlash. Civil society groups, international monitors, and Georgian viewers will be watching closely, as the outcome will signal whether Georgia\u2019s democracy can withstand mounting pressure on free expression, or whether it risks sliding further into a climate of government-imposed silence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Tbilisi, June 3, 2025 \u2014 The ruling Georgian Dream party has initiated formal complaints with the National Communications Commission against three major opposition-leaning television stations\u2014Formula, TV Pirveli, and Mtavari\u2014alleging that journalists and anchors used \u201canti-government\u201d terminology in violation of recent amendments to the Broadcasting Law. A public hearing on these complaints is scheduled for June […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":30800,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-feed"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30798"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30798\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30801,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30798\/revisions\/30801"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30800"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.irfs.org\/az\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}