The Constitutional Court of Georgia has opened proceedings related to the potential impeachment of President Salome Zurabishvili, focusing on questions about whether her foreign travels were conducted with the government’s authorization. In neighboring studios and prime-time news programs, cameras capture the courtroom session as it unfolds, reflecting the heightened public interest in Georgia’s constitutional process.
Representing the ruling party, Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia, are Irakli Kobakhidze, the party’s parliamentary leadership, and MPs Giorgi Kakhiani, Anri Okhanashvili, and Tengiz Sharmanashvili. They argue that the president breached the nation’s fundamental law by engaging in international travel without explicit government approval, a claim that anchors the impeachment initiative currently under consideration.
Zurabishvili’s legal position is presented by Tamar Chugoshvili, a former parliamentarian, alongside Maya Kopaleishvili, a former Constitutional Court judge. The president has chosen not to attend the hearing in person; nonetheless, her legal team emphasizes due process and the need for a transparent public discussion about the matter.
Bearing in mind the gravity of the case, both sides have called for a public adjudication to ensure that the public can observe the proceedings and understand the arguments that might influence Georgia’s constitutional order in the years ahead.
The impeachment process was formally announced by the ruling party on September 1, describing the action as a direct response to the president’s conduct that allegedly violated the state’s core constitutional norms. The party frames the issue as a matter of executive accountability, noting that a vote related to a European travel itinerary was undertaken without the government’s permission. They also stress that any impeachment resolution will require broad support, not only from the ruling majority but also from opposition members, to pass through parliament.
In Georgia’s system, should the required supermajority be reached in Parliament, the president would be formally dismissed from office. The specific threshold in this case is 100 votes out of 150 lawmakers. If that threshold is achieved, Zurabishvili would be removed from office, triggering further constitutional processes to appoint or elect a successor and to undertake any necessary transitional arrangements. The debate thus centers on constitutional text, the separation of powers, and how executive actions align with the rule that government decisions should be made with proper authorization in a manner consistent with the republic’s legal framework.
Observers note that impeachment in Georgia is a politically charged instrument as well as a constitutional mechanism. The current proceedings reflect the broader tensions that can arise between the presidency and Parliament in matters of foreign policy, constitutional interpretation, and the limits of presidential prerogative. The outcome will depend on the evolving interpretation of the constitutional articles at stake, the evidence presented, and the political calculations of both majority and opposition camps as they navigate the parliamentary timetable and potential public sentiment.
Beyond the immediate case, legal scholars and political analysts emphasize the importance of procedural safeguards, public access to hearings, and adherence to constitutional norms to preserve the balance of powers. The situation underscores how Georgia’s constitutional framework is tested when executive actions intersect with international engagements and national sovereignty. As the hearings proceed, parties and observers alike will watch closely for how the court interprets the relevant articles and how parliamentary votes align with the will of the people and the country’s long-term constitutional stability.
Ultimately, Georgia faces a defining moment about accountability, constitutional discipline, and the public’s confidence in its political institutions. The impeachment process, whether it leads to removal or a consolidation of political resolve within Parliament, will shape the public discourse around governance, governance ethics, and the role of the presidency within a modern, legally grounded state. In the months to come, the court’s rulings, the parliament’s positions, and the public’s response will together determine how the nation navigates this constitutional crossroads.