“We have no objection to this statement because, as I’ve mentioned before, our main goal was to ensure maximum public involvement. The very next day, we received an appropriate, adequate, and, we can say, positive response to this,” said Mamuka Mdinaradze, the leader of the parliamentary majority, as he assessed the initiative of the United Neutral Georgia. This initiative involves filing a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office against politicians allegedly engaged in espionage activities.

According to Mdinaradze, it is crystal clear how spies are operating in Georgia under the orders of various foreign forces. Therefore, if anyone demands a legal response, the ruling team will have no objection. 

“The fact is that before the commission is created, we have already ensured a degree of public involvement. An initiative came from part of society, from a specific organization, that targets not only the period within the mandate of the investigative commission focusing on events from 2003 to 2012 – a time when a regime wielded power and authority maliciously, committing horrific crimes and falsely accusing their military of war crimes – but also highlights that this network has incorporated others and continued criminal and espionage activities beyond that period. 

We have assessed this multiple times at the political level, and it is not just our opinion; the vast majority of society shares this assessment. It is crystal clear how spies operate in Georgia under orders from foreign countries and their representatives, various forces in other nations, the Deep State and so forth,” stated Mamuka Mdinaradze.

He further explained that espionage activities conducted by various forces since 2012 do not fall within the mandate of the investigative commission addressing crimes from 2003-2012 and require a higher standard of legal assessment.

“If anyone demands a legal evaluation and appropriate response to this, we have no objection because this situation does not fall within the 2003-2012 mandate—this requires a legal assessment. For the sake of objectivity, we must acknowledge that the standard for legal assessment is even higher; the state has to substantiate specific crimes with concrete evidence. The interplay of subjective and objective circumstances requires additional efforts, as elements of the presumption of innocence come into play, and so on. However, if there is an appropriate response and evidence— which is, on the other hand, crystal clear to us and well known—then we will have no objection,” Mdinaradze concluded.