UNM’s Levan Bezhashvili: I understand Mikheil Saakashvili’s sentiment, but our legal argument is grounded in the Constitution and Strasbourg court rulings

“The expectation from the court, the claimants, or others that we should rebut political accusations is precisely what Georgian Dream and the judiciary want, to keep our legal arguments trapped in a constant whirlwind of the past,” United National Movement member Levan Bezhashvili has said.

According to Bezhashvili, the party seeks to persuade the court that past actions do not justify a legal ban.

“The United National Movement has its own strategy regarding constitutional litigation. The format of constitutional proceedings often cannot and does not allow for debating matters of political justice. Guided strictly by the principles of constitutional jurisprudence, we are seeking to prove that no constitutional or legal grounds exist to ban the party. That is our defence strategy. The court must see that the United National Movement poses no threat to the constitutional order.

Accordingly, the position of the court, the claimant, or others that political allegations should be refuted here is precisely the goal of Georgian Dream and the court: to keep our legal debate mired in the turmoil of the past. Our primary task today is to persuade the court that events from the past are not relevant to the question of banning the party; that is the specific objective before us.

Of course, Mikheil Saakashvili’s position plays a decisive role in how the party is represented. Naturally, the party leadership and the political council must discuss this and hold consultations with Saakashvili. Perhaps others are better placed to represent the interests of the United National Movement; that is not an issue either,” Bezhashvili said.

Bezhashvili noted that while political arguments carry great weight, representing a party before the Constitutional Court requires a different standard.

“We, the party’s representatives, have not distanced ourselves from anything; the law and international standards draw that distinction. When the issue concerns actions carried out by the state, liability cannot be attributed to a political party. Our legal argumentation rests on the Constitution and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Any other assessment belongs to political debate. If we are holding a political debate, then by all means, we will rely on the existing political records and arguments. Unfortunately, the courtroom format simply does not allow for that.

I understand Mikheil Saakashvili’s sentiment that political arguments are vital, particularly when the banning of a political party is at stake. Outside the courtroom, we regularly state that this lawsuit, along with certain positions taken by the judges, is politically motivated and unfounded. However, representing a case before the Constitutional Court demands a different standard,” Bezhashvili said.

Earlier, former president Mikheil Saakashvili wrote on social media: “What is wrong with the party representatives in Batumi? If you cannot defend yourselves with smarter arguments, stop taking part in this dictatorship’s game and go home.”