December 2024, protestors in Georgia being dispersed by a water cannon truck. Evaldas/Adobe Stock

New proposals set out by the Georgian government to curb public protest will have a ‘chilling effect’ on civil society, say human rights experts. The warning comes after draft legislation in December that would greatly expand the grounds on which authorities can disperse protests, introduce stricter advance notice requirements for demonstrations and significantly increase fines and detention periods for those charged with protest-related offences.

Tamar Oniani, Chairperson of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA), says the draft law, if passed, would ban most forms of public assembly still available in Georgia. ‘Among the most worrying elements are prohibitions that in practice would outlaw small, static protests on pavements and in front of public buildings,’ she says, ‘criminalising the very visibility that is essential to peaceful assembly and making spontaneous or symbolic protests nearly impossible in central urban spaces.’

In late January, Georgia’s Public Defender, Levan Ioseliani, filed a lawsuit at the country’s Constitutional Court challenging the government’s increasingly draconian restrictions on public protest. However, the Court remains heavily under the ruling party’s control, severely limiting the chance of success. ‘The Constitutional Court’s docket is intentionally slow when it comes to sensitive cases,’ says Oniani. ‘There is a real risk that even a successful challenge would come only after the law has already shaped protest behaviour for months or years.’

Meanwhile, in January the Georgian government formally lodged a complaint with the UK’s BBC in relation to a BBC Eye investigation that alleged the potential use of World War One chemicals against anti-government demonstrators in the country. The documentary presented evidence that a military-grade agent known as camite may have been mixed in water cannons and used during pro-EU protests in November and December 2024.

Camite is a toxic chemical known to cause burns, vomiting, shortness of breath and other serious long-lasting injuries. Georgia is a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals as weapons.

After the documentary aired in December, Georgia’s Stare Security Service (SSU) said the police had used a chemical substance to calm protesters during the 2024 protests. However, the SSU refuted claims it was a WW1 substance, instead saying it was a form of tear gas that is regularly used by law enforcement worldwide.

The complaint accuses the BBC of disseminating false, defamatory and politically motivated allegations against the Georgian authorities. It demands the removal of the documentary and related article, as well as a public apology.

In a public briefing on the complaint, Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili strongly denied the broadcaster’s allegations as ‘absurd’ and ‘false’. Neither he nor the Georgian government more generally responded to Global Insight’s request for further comment.

In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said the documentary’s reporting was ‘firmly in the public interest’ and based on verified ‘evidence from multiple sources’, including testimony gathered by whistleblowers and from UN experts as well as from those inside Georgia. The broadcaster said it would respond to the complaint ‘via the established process.’

Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair of the IBA Human Rights Institute, says the Georgian government’s reaction to the BBC’s investigation is revealing. ‘Robust democracies don’t respond to uncomfortable journalism with threats, complaints or attempts to muzzle the press,’ he says. ‘Filing a complaint against an established international broadcaster for investigative reporting can be a hallmark move by governments seeking to create a chilling effect on the foreign media and a signal to domestic media that critical reporting won’t be tolerated.’

In December, Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders – who visited Georgia in autumn 2023 – expressed deep concern after reports emerged that Oniani and another GYLA staff member were summoned by the SSU for questioning over statements made in the documentary.

Oniani says the interrogation was another example of efforts by the authorities to deflect public attention away from the regime’s actions. ‘Rather than ensuring an effective and independent investigation into alleged abuses, including the use of chemical agents, the authorities appear to be shifting focus onto those who speak out, using problematic rhetoric such as “damage to state interests”,’ she says. ‘GYLA has acted within its mandate by expressing its publicly documented and evidence-based position and will continue to cooperate with the investigation while maintaining its role in exposing and documenting human rights violations.’

In a recent letter, Michael O’Flaherty, a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights who visited the country in early 2025, called on the Prosecutor General of Georgia to fully examine the situation, which he said raised ‘serious questions about the legality, necessity and proportionality’ of the methods used to quell protesters.

In its response, the Georgian government said that the SSU investigation had determined that ‘none of the powders or liquids submitted for expert analysis’ were ‘camite’ and that actions taken by the ‘police were in full compliance with the principles of legality and proportionality, and the measures taken by them were proportionate.’

Stephens – who’s also a consultant at Howard Kennedy in London – and Oniani say that both the legal complaint and the latest protest restrictions are part of a growing pattern of repressive tactics used by the authorities to dismantle space for dissent. ‘At a time when Georgia’s European future should be built on openness, dialogue and respect for liberty, the authorities seem to be retreating into defensiveness and repression,’ says Stephens. ‘The international community, particularly Georgia’s partners in Europe, will rightly view this as a really troubling sign of democratic backsliding.’