On December 9, 2025, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Tbilisi City Court in the defamation case brought by former Minister of Internal Affairs of “Georgian Dream,” Aleksandre Chikaidze, against the television company TV Pirveli and journalist Sopho Niauri. The dispute concerns a report aired on TV Pirveli in the program “Nodar Meladze’s Saturday,” in which Chikaidze was accused of having links to so-called call centers. The Court of Appeal ordered the television company and the journalist to issue a retraction of the information disseminated about Aleksandre Chikaidze and to pay moral damages in the amount of 10,000 lari.
It is particularly problematic that in such a dispute the journalist was considered a proper defendant, which contradicts the Law “On Freedom of Speech and Expression,” according to which, in defamation cases related to content published by a journalist in the media, the defendant is the media owner. Such an approach is the result of incorrect judicial practice that has taken root in recent years and creates a precedent harmful to media freedom.
This judicial practice is developing against the backdrop of amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, which “Georgian Dream” adopted under an expedited procedure on June 26. The amendments shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, abolished important mechanisms for the protection of journalists, including guarantees for source protection and the so-called qualified privilege, and increased the risks of legal pressure against the media and critical voices.
This is not the first instance of legal proceedings initiated against critical media on the grounds of defamation. According to the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, in recent years 28 lawsuits have been filed against three leading critical television channels—Mtavari Arkhi, Formula, and TV Pirveli—most of which were initiated by representatives of the ruling party and individuals close to them. In the organization’s assessment, such cases bear the hallmarks of SLAPP litigation and point to a coordinated trend aimed at intimidating critical media.
