The State Security Service (SSS), from 2015 to the present, has evolved into an instrument advancing partisan interests. Statements issued by the agency over the years, often without resulting in tangible legal outcomes, such as those concerning alleged interference by “foreign states” or investigations into purported “coup attempts”, have been utilised as tools of political contestation and for the manipulation of public opinion. However, in 2025, the activities of the SSS became more explicit and pronounced. The agency no longer conceals its position that the principal threat to national security originates from the West. Over the course of 2025, the SSS’s activities grew increasingly aggressive, emerging as one of the indicators of the consolidation of authoritarian tendencies within the country.

From the outset, the mandate of the SSS has encompassed notably broad powers. In addition to its core function of safeguarding national security, it has been entrusted with the investigation of criminal cases that are not directly related to security matters.1 Furthermore, the Operational-Technical Agency,2 endowed with the authority to conduct covert investigative measures, was placed under its authority, thereby creating risks of human rights violations in the absence of adequate oversight. In 2025, the intelligence service was also incorporated into the structure of the SSS, further expanding the agency’s powers.3

Over the years, the politicised governance of the SSS and its concentration under single-party control (evidenced by the fact that the last three heads of the Service were members of the parliamentary majority of the Georgian Dream party) has not been effectively counterbalanced by parliamentary oversight, which has remained weak. This limited window of democratic oversight was effectively closed further following the 2024 elections, when all opposition political parties refused to recognise the legitimacy of the parliament and, with one exception, declined to exercise their parliamentary mandates.4 In this context, the activities of the Service have become, in practice, almost entirely closed to public scrutiny, thereby further increasing the risks of human rights violations.

The State Security Service – A Politicised Institution Operating Outside Effective Democratic Oversight