Day: February 16, 2026
The ruling Georgian Dream party plans to punish “systematic” non-recognition of the government with up to three years in prison and to introduce such refusal as an aggravating circumstance in certain crimes under Georgia’s Criminal Code.
The relevant changes, presented on February 16 at the Legal Issues Committee in the disputed Parliament by the committee chair Archil Gorduladze, will be added to a highly controversial legislative package introducing further restrictions on foreign grants, which has already passed first reading.
The idea to criminalize refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the government and other constitutional bodies was first floated during a February 4 parliamentary plenary hearing, where MPs cited Germany’s experience. The ruling party leaders later referenced the 2025 banning of Germany’s far-right Reichsbürger movement, apparently framing opposition groups’ and citizens’ questioning of the Georgian Dream government’s legitimacy as analogous to the case.
During the February 16 committee hearing, MP Archil Gorduladze read out the proposed Article 316 Prima to Georgia’s Criminal Code, titled “Extremism Against the Constitutional Order.”
The draft article, as read out by Gorduladze, will target Georgian citizens or non-citizens who make “systematic and public calls” for “the mass violation of legislation, mass defiance of Georgian government bodies, or the creation of alternative authorities.”
It will also target individuals “who systematically and publicly present themselves, or another person, as a representative of the Georgian government.”
The article will further target “other systematic actions aimed at creating the perception that Georgia’s constitutional order or its constitutional bodies are illegitimate, and that harm Georgia’s interests or create a real danger to harm those interests.”
According to Gorduladze, penalties under the article could include a fine, the amount of which he did not specify, 400 to 600 hours of community service, or up to three years in prison.
Gorduladze said the key factors in classifying actions as such an offense are that they are “systemic, systematic, and public.”
“A single person’s actions, of course, will not be considered a criminal offense,” he said, arguing that this approach will draw a “clear line” between freedom of speech and expression and criminal activity.
In addition, such a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of constitutional bodies will become an aggravating circumstance for other offenses in the Criminal Code.
“When imposing a sentence, committing a crime with the motive of refusing to recognize Georgia’s constitutional order or constitutional bodies will be considered an aggravating circumstance,” Gorduladze said, noting that the sentence must exceed the standard term for the relevant crime by “at least” one year.
Commenting on the draft article, Georgian Dream Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze drew a parallel between Russia and what he called “extremist forces” inside the country.
“Russia and four other countries do not recognize the Georgian government’s jurisdiction over 20 percent of the country’s territory,” he said, “and in Georgia, there are extremist forces that do not recognize the government’s jurisdiction over 100 percent of the country’s territory.”
“We oppose both,” he added, “In the first case through the Law on Occupation, and in the second through a clause on extremism in the Criminal Code.”
The Georgian Parliament, formed after the widely contested 2024 general elections, remains disputed. The Georgian Dream government that stayed in power and President Mikheil Kavelashvili, elected by a parliament made up only of Georgian Dream MPs at the time, are also challenged. Many opposition parties and opposition-minded citizens continue to reject their legitimacy.
In comments to journalists, Irakli Kobakhidze also defended the 2024 election results, saying claims that they were rigged were “without any evidence.”
“There was no violation,” he asserted. “The elections were carried out legitimately. When there is no evidence of election rigging, but sabotage continues, and when extremism against the constitutional order persists, legislation must respond to it,” he added.
Meanwhile, Georgia’s Public Defender said the proposed offense “could conflict with both international standards protecting freedom of expression and the Georgian Constitution, and could allow for an overly broad interpretation of the imposed restrictions.” The Ombudsperson added that he will review the final version of the law once it is adopted and, if necessary, may file a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court.
Also Read:
Georgia’s new “anti-extremism” bill
The ruling Georgian Dream party plans to introduce new legal restrictions that would impose criminal liability on citizens who “publicly refuse to recognise the legitimacy of constitutional bodies” or call on others to do so.
The initiative предусматривает adding a new article to the criminal code that could carry a prison sentence of up to three years, as well as tougher penalties for existing offences committed “on the basis of non-recognition [of constitutional bodies]”.
The government says the changes are part of efforts to combat extremism, while critics see the proposed law as a threat to free speech because of its broad and vague wording.
What the bill proposes
According to amendments submitted to parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, a new Article 316 on “extremism against the constitutional order” would be added to the criminal code. The author of the initiative, MP Archil Gorduladze, said the violations described in the article would include:
- Calls for mass violations of Georgian law;
- Mass disobedience to state authorities;
- Systematic calls to create alternative bodies of power;
- Arbitrarily presenting oneself or another person as a “representative of the government”;
- Other actions aimed at creating the perception that constitutional bodies are illegitimate, harming the country’s interests or creating such a threat.
The maximum penalty would be up to three years in prison. Other possible sanctions include fines or community service. Legal entities could face liquidation and/or fines.
In addition, if any crime is committed “on the basis of non-recognition of constitutional bodies or organisations”, it would be treated as an aggravating circumstance. The minimum sentence in such cases would be no less than one year.
Government’s argument: борьба с “extremism” → fighting “extremism”
Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze of the ruling Georgian Dream party said that forces are operating in the country that do not recognise the government’s jurisdiction over the entire territory, and therefore pose a threat to statehood.
Kobakhidze referred to opposition statements about possible fraud after the 2020 elections and noted that opposition parties later signed an agreement mediated by the EU — the so-called Charles Michel agreement. He said similar accusations were made after the 2024 elections, although the government insists they were not backed by evidence.
The government also points to international assessments. An election observation mission led by the OSCE described the 2024 vote as competitive and fair. For Kobakhidze, this supports the argument that publicly denying the legitimacy of elections in Georgia amounts to political sabotage.
The prime minister also linked the bill to Russia’s policy regarding the occupied territories of Georgia, saying the state must respond to both external and internal challenges through legislation.
Background
Since gaining independence, Georgia has experienced a series of political crises in which the legitimacy of elections and trust in state institutions were called into question. After the 2020 parliamentary elections, part of the opposition boycotted parliament, and an EU-mediated agreement only temporarily eased the crisis.
In 2024, all opposition parties unanimously declared the parliamentary elections to be rigged and refused to take part in parliamentary work. Like Georgia’s fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili, they continue to regard the government as illegitimate.
Experts say the wording of the bill — especially phrases such as “creating the perception of illegitimacy” and “a real threat of harm to national interests” — allows for broad interpretation. This raises a key question: where is the line between violent actions against the state and the expression of political criticism?
Human rights advocates warn that vague definitions could be used against political opponents, activists or the media.
In international practice, anti-extremism laws are usually aimed at direct calls for violence or the violent overthrow of the constitutional order.
In Georgia’s case, the changes are being introduced at a time of deep political polarisation and ongoing disputes over the legitimacy of elections. In that context, how the new article is interpreted and applied in practice will be especially important.
Georgia’s new “anti-extremism” bill