In this edition of Press Freedom Advocates, Media Defence speaks with Saba Sutidze, a human rights and media lawyer at the Tolerance and Diversity Institute, about the escalating crackdown, the risks for journalists and civil society, and why legal support and strategic litigation are vital to defending Georgia’s democratic future.
Spring 2024 brought Georgia to a boiling point. Thousands of protesters surged through Tbilisi, covering the Parliament building in graffiti as students boycotted classes, and mass anti-government demonstrations stretched on for weeks.
Despite the protests and public outcry, the ruling party, Georgian Dream, pressed ahead with its controversial Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, first floated in March 2023, and adopted through a fast-tracked parliamentary process.
Two years later, the law mandates NGOs and media outlets receiving 20% or more of their funding from abroad to register as ‘organisations serving the interests of a foreign power,’ facing heavy reporting burdens and fines of up to 25,000 GEL (approx. £7,500).
In the years leading up to the 2024 protests, Georgia’s freedom of expression landscape had already been deteriorating, explains Saba Sutidze of the Tolerance and Diversity Institute. Independent outlets faced growing political pressure, defamation lawsuits were increasingly used against critical journalists, and incidents of violence against reporters went largely unpunished, he says.
International monitors repeatedly warned of this downward trend: in 2025, Reporters Without Borders ranked Georgia 114th out of 180 countries, indicating that “the Georgian Public Broadcaster has lost its independence, and independent media face severe financial threats, including potential bans and forced closures”.
Officially, laws that restrict how media organisations and NGOs are funded, known as ‘Foreign Agent Laws’, are introduced to promote transparency and national security. In reality they threaten civil society and stifle press freedom.
The concept of a ‘Foreign Agent Law’ originated in Russia and has since been replicated by autocratic governments all around the world. These laws are used as tools of repression against civil society organisations, journalists, and human rights defenders by branding them as acting on behalf of foreign interests.
Repression in the Streets and in Newsrooms
On 28 November, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze declared that the question of opening EU accession negotiations would be removed from the national agenda. The announcement ignited a new wave of public outrage. Demonstrations spread across the country, and crowds once again filled the streets of Tbilisi, demanding accountability and a return to Georgia’s pro-European course.
Amid this ongoing unrest, the environment for journalists is deteriorating sharply, as explained by Sutidze: reporters and camera operators have repeatedly been assaulted while covering the demonstrations, and, to date, there has been widespread impunity. Any investigations into these attacks have been largely ineffective, with little hope for accountability, he says.
And the repression soon moved beyond the streets to newsrooms: “In the first half of January 2025, Georgian journalist Mzia Amaglobeli, founder and CEO of two prominent and reputable online media outlets, was arrested, and a criminal case was fabricated against her. In August 2025, she was sentenced to two years in prison”, Sutidze recounts.
This, he stresses, sent a chilling signal to independent media: “no outlet, no editor, and no journalist is beyond the reach of politically motivated prosecution.”
In April 2025, the parliament adopted the so-called Georgian FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act], according to which anyone — including media organisations — who directly or indirectly cooperates with a foreign principal and serves its interests is required to register in a special registry as a foreign agent, explains Sutidze.
“In practice, however, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, according to its statements, is expected to classify anyone as a foreign agent solely on the basis of directly or indirectly receiving grants from foreign organisations.”
The law requires those considered “agents of a foreign principal” to register with the Anti-Corruption Bureau within ten days, on pain of criminal prosecution and jail time.
The law’s real goal, Sutidze argues, is not transparency but coercion.
“Georgian Dream continues to adopt legislation aimed at restricting freedom of expression and receiving grants that will undoubtedly have a deteriorating effect on media freedom as well,” continues Sutidze, bringing the example of a newly introduced piece of legislation.
Since December 2025, he explains, any assembly or gathering must be notified to the authorities, whereas previously the obligation to give prior notice only applied if the gathering was to be held on a roadway used by vehicles.
The obligation has now been extended to assemblies held in places used by pedestrians.
He also mentions that the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia has been granted the authority to issue a binding instruction — rather than a recommendation, as it would have previously been able to do — requiring a change of the time, location, or route of the assembly or demonstration, if it considers that the gathering might obstruct the free movement of people.
“For violations of these provisions, administrative detention is provided for without any alternative sanction, and it has already been applied against protest participants,” says Sutidze.
“Currently, the parliament is considering draft laws that would further restrict the receipt of grants,” he continues. A grant is defined as any funds transferred by a foreign citizen or organisation to a Georgian citizen or organisation. Funds can be monetary or in-kind, like technical assistance, if such resources are used or could potentially be used to influence the Government of Georgia or any segment of the public in activities aimed at shaping, implementing, or changing Georgia’s domestic or foreign policy.
“The definition would likewise cover resources used or potentially usable for activities deriving from the political or public interests, approaches, or relationships of a foreign government or foreign political party,” explains Sutidze. “Receiving such funds would require prior consent from the Government.”
According to Sutidze, the law is both absurd and too broad: absurd because it would require the Government’s consent for activities that are, by definition and nature, aimed at influencing or challenging the Government, and too broad because, it could lead to any person who receives income from abroad (even if it is remuneration for labour) facing liability if they participate in any form of political activity.
“Such liability is not merely administrative but criminal in nature, carrying a penalty of up to six years’ imprisonment,” says Sutidze.
The Criminal Code is also being amended to introduce the new offence of “Extremism Against the Constitutional Order of Georgia.”
“Among other acts, this offence would include the unauthorized, public, and systematic self-representation by a Georgian citizen — or the representation of another person — as a representative of the Georgian authorities, as well as any other systematic conduct by the same person, if such conduct is aimed at establishing a perception of the illegitimacy of Georgia’s constitutional order or constitutional bodies and harms Georgia’s interests or creates a real threat of harm to Georgia’s interests.”
The Impact on Local and Foreign Journalists
Sutidze fears that the provision is intended to criminalise claims that Georgian Dream is illegitimate and is directed at repressing opposition or individuals who question the legitimacy of the 2024 election results.
The Impact on Local and Foreign Journalists
Foreign journalists have not been spared either: “These repressive measures have targeted not only Georgian media representatives but also foreign journalists. It is likely that foreign journalists, particularly those from Western countries reporting on Georgia for the international press, are perceived as a threat by Georgian Dream, as the party’s efforts to isolate Georgia from the West continue to intensify.”
In the weeks leading up to the 2024 parliamentary elections, foreign journalists were being denied entry to Georgia. Many critics accused the government of a deliberate attempt to stop Western media from covering the situation in Georgia.
“This assumption is well-founded, as all journalists who were denied entry had been actively reporting on Georgia’s politics and related topics.” According to Sutidze, more than ten such cases have so far been documented, and the practice shows no sign of abating.
The Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI) currently represents several of these journalists who have been denied entry. “Our beneficiaries include investigative, photo, and print journalists from France and the UK who actively cover topics related to Georgia’s political situation. They have reported on pro-European protests in Georgia and the Georgian Dream party’s repressive response. Their articles have been published in prominent outlets such as The Guardian, Politico, and Le Monde Magazine. One of our beneficiaries is also a former journalist from Lithuania.
“Two of these journalists were not only denied entry to Georgia, but their permanent residence permits — which were issued based on marriage to Georgian nationals — were revoked on the grounds of state security. As a result, their Georgian spouses and children had to leave the country to keep their families together. TDI is litigating these residency-related cases as well.”
Sutidze also highlighted a worrying pattern emerging at Georgia’s borders. Journalists denied entry frequently report that officers of the Patrol Police Department (PPD) have confiscated their mobile phones while they await deportation flights. “This request has no legal basis, yet it appears to be routine practice for the PPD. Allegedly, the purpose is to prevent foreign nationals from communicating with relatives, sharing information about their denial of entry, or contacting a lawyer before deportation.”
In one case, Sutidze tells us, a Czech journalist managed to alert a friend before his phone was seized, prompting a TDI lawyer to rush to Tbilisi International Airport. Even then, the PPD officers refused to allow the lawyer to meet with him, in what Sutidze describes as a “completely unlawful action without any legal justification.”
After receiving multiple complaints, the Public Defender of Georgia formally requested information from the PPD. The Department responded by denying that any such confiscations had ever taken place.
Another emerging trend involves unexplained financial penalties, Sutidze explains. Several foreign nationals — including one photojournalist represented by TDI — were fined GEL 5,000 (approx. £1,418) without any stated reason. “We believe it may be connected to the pro-European protests,” he says, noting that they were all covering or attending the mass demonstrations which followed Prime Minister Kobakhidze’s decision to drop EU accession talks from the agenda. TDI’s requests for clarification about these fines from the Ministry of Internal Affairs have gone unanswered.
In nearly all border-denial cases that TDI has taken on, the authorities cite a generic clause as the legal basis for refusing entry: ‘other cases envisaged by Georgian legislation’. This provision functions as a broad, catch-all justification, enabling the authorities to refuse entry without specifying a concrete legal basis.
Sutidze tells us that “the PPD did not specify which case they were referring to. In fact, no such ‘other cases’ exist in Georgian law, yet the Department regularly invokes this subparagraph, which constitutes an abuse of the law.”
When these cases reach the courts, the PPD often shifts its justification, suddenly invoking ‘state security interests’, claiming that the journalists posed a threat to Georgia’s state security. This is a separate legal ground to deny entry that was never mentioned in the original refusal, the administrative appeal, or the written submissions, explains Sutidze.
“If the Department truly possessed such information, it should have cited the corresponding subparagraph in its decision.” For now, all TDI’s cases involving journalists remain pending in the first-instance courts.
Supported by Media Defence, TDI continues to pursue litigation and says it stands ready to appeal adverse decisions to higher courts.
The outcome of these cases will not only determine the fate of the individuals involved but will also shape the future of press freedom in a country where democratic institutions have come under serious strain.
