On Monday, opposition representatives met with members of the People’s Assembly in closed committee hearings to express their negative stance on a draft agreement under parliamentary consideration which guarantees Russian investments in Abkhazia. The deputies themselves also have numerous criticisms of the project, reflected in 20 proposed amendments to the document.

But there is no guarantee that the criticized project, in its current form, won’t be signed at the government level soon. It’s evident that the executive branch is eager to finalize this before the presidential elections, scheduled for early next year. The editor of the news outlet Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed the parliamentary meeting, the sentiments of the deputies, and the public’s expectations for the upcoming presidential campaign with the Deputy Chair of the Aydgylara Party, Eshsou Kakalia.

Investment Agreement and Presidential Elections | Eshsou Kakalia and Inal Khashig

Full text of interview:

Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. We’re once again discussing important topics, and today’s discussion again touches on the investment agreement to provide guarantees for Russian investments in Abkhazia. On Monday there was a closed-door meeting in parliament at the committee and hearing level, as I understand. The press was not allowed in, which has become somewhat of a new trend for discussions of crucial issues. But we have the opportunity to speak with one of the session’s participants. Good afternoon. Could you please tell us about the atmosphere in parliament? We heard comments from the opposition after the meeting, but what are the general opinions and positions of the deputies?

“There are deputies ready to support any government initiative.”

Eshsou Kakalia: Hello, Inal. I’m glad to be back in your studio. Parliament includes people of diverse views, so naturally, the moods are varied. Some deputies are ready to support any government initiative. Others try to examine issues objectively. And there are those who are categorically opposed, who justify their stance and are ready to defend it. So, opinions are different. But so far, it doesn’t seem like the parliament is prepared to vote unanimously in favor, and that’s encouraging.

Inal Khashig: Last December, following the highly publicized meeting regarding Pitsunda, a law was passed requiring all international agreements to receive parliamentary approval before being signed. So now the parliament must vote for or against. How will this process unfold?

Eshsou Kakalia: This law has been widely discussed and has received various evaluations. According to amendments to the law on international treaties introduced after the Pitsunda vote, proposed agreements must be approved by the People’s Assembly before being signed. The exact procedures haven’t yet been detailed in the regulations, but it’s expected that parliament will have to vote for or against. This will be the first time for such a process: parliament will either approve or reject the signing of the investment agreement. At the current stage, the parliamentary committees have made their comments, adding around 20 amendments to the proposed agreement, and sent this to the executive branch. But, according to our information, the executive branch has refused to accept the amendments.

Inal Khashig: As I understand it, these amendments were sent to the lawyer of Montero Group (owned by Alexander Tkachev), who rejected them, after which they were returned. The corrections weren’t sent to the Russian government or the presidential administration — only the Montero lawyer provided an opinion, and the government refused to make any changes.

Eshsou Kakalia: Here it’s important to consider how we’re assessing the situation — whether it’s according to legal norms, media reports, or things that everyone knows but no one officially confirms. These are different approaches.

Inal Khashig: But the committee meeting included government members, and Deputy Kan Kvarchia was asking for official correspondence regarding the agreement. Montero Grouphas already become a widely discussed topic; although there’s been no official denial, there’s also been no confirmation from the authorities. This includes the issue of loans that some deputies supposedly received — some deny any involvement, while others remain silent.

Eshsou Kakalia: We’ll leave that to their conscience.

Inal Khashig: Indeed, this raises many questions. We are left interpreting the actions of an administration that operates in secrecy. The situation is interesting. You’re saying that parliament, essentially, hasn’t approved the agreement? Parliament is a collegial body, and decisions should be made by voting. Yet yesterday, I saw on a Telegram channel that the president gave an interview to a Russian television channel, assuring that the intergovernmental agreement would be signed soon. How is this possible if parliament has not yet given its consent?

“By signing the harmonization plan, the executive branch effectively assumed the role of the legislative branch, violating the Constitution.”

Eshsou Kakalia: You mentioned that the Constitution and laws have been overstepped. Let’s separate these issues. The current administration, led by President Aslan Bzhania, signed the so-called “harmonization plan” last year. This is a crucial point and should be highlighted. By signing the harmonization plan, the executive branch effectively assumed the role of the legislative branch, violating the Constitution. According to this principle, all branches of power should operate independently, without dependence on each other.

Now, regarding the correspondence between parliamentary deputies and the executive branch: one document mentions that on March 12, 2020, changes were made to the harmonization plan, and the agreement we’re discussing suddenly appeared in this plan. The question is, who, when, and on what basis made these changes? Who authorized such adjustments to the 2024 budget harmonization plan? This is a crucial question because it determines the future of our society and republic. Yet there are no answers to these questions, and no one seems willing to provide any.

Regarding the session held on Monday, which we attended, it was held behind closed doors. When I asked who made this decision, since according to the People’s Assembly regulations, such decisions should be made by vote, I was told that there was no vote and that everything was decided without one. Where is the principle of transparency? Where have democracy and the rule of law gone? I bring this up not by chance. We live in a reality where the Constitution is constantly violated: critical issues are discussed, and then, ignoring laws and regulations, actions continue.

The question of accountability is never raised, and this is extremely alarming. I have raised this issue many times and will continue to do so. This could be a fateful agreement with terms that could have a decisive impact on our state and people. Yet these issues are being discussed behind closed doors, and no one can provide a clear answer as to why this is happening. Now, back to what you mentioned: the country’s president stated in an interview with Russian television that he intends to sign this agreement soon. But how can he say this when, according to the Constitution, the Parliament, the People’s Assembly of the Republic of Abkhazia, has not yet given its consent to this document?

Eshsou Kakalia: It’s a troubling sign. It’s  very telling, as it clearly demonstrates a disregard for the Constitution and current laws. Throughout modern history, our legislators have created protective mechanisms to ensure proper regulation, including by amending the law on international treaties. I am beginning to suspect that, in this case, the government is attempting to bypass these mechanisms by using international agreements, as it is well known that international law takes precedence over national legislation. This is a shortcut to avoid compliance with the requirements of domestic law.

Inal Khashig: Let’s not get hung up on the details.

Eshsou Kakalia: Yes, of course, you could say that with a touch of irony. But this is concerning and it needs to be discussed. Society should be aware of what is happening. I believe it is extremely important.

Inal Khashig: But at this stage, an international agreement essentially takes priority over national legislation. This is accepted practice in many countries. For example, in Russia, they have decided that international agreements cannot override national laws. You have to understand that international obligations of the parties, by definition, cannot always align with national legislation. This is normal in international practice and is nothing unusual. What matters more is how much the interests of both parties are considered when drafting these agreements. Incidentally, in preparing the agreements being proposed to us, the drafters primarily focused on their own interests. That’s a fact.

Inal Khashig: I see. I remember in the past, when similar documents were being drafted, they forgot to remove the word “federal,” which revealed where these initiatives were coming from.

Eshsou Kakalia: Those are entirely different things.

Inal Khashig: But the agreement texts…

Eshsou Kakalia: Yes, the texts of the agreements being drafted typically use Russian legislation as a foundation, then certain changes are made. That’s one thing. However, when it comes to an international agreement developed in Russia, considering the interests—in this case—of a Russian investor, it’s entirely different.

Inal Khashig: And personal interests of certain individuals…

Eshsou Kakalia: Yes, officials. We can assume as much. But these are entirely different matters.

Inal Khashig: Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that agreements that have caused a stir often include loose interpretations of Abkhazian law. For example, in the investment agreement, the question arises: how can land, which legally cannot be bought or sold, be used as collateral?

Eshsou Kakalia: Land cannot be used as collateral.

Inal Khashig: It cannot be sold either.

“De jure, land cannot be used as collateral, but property on that land can be.”

Eshsou Kakalia: Indeed, de jure, land cannot be used as collateral, but property located on that land can be. And in practice, this property could be connected to the land parcel, which would effectively involve the land. This is an important point we raised in discussions with the deputies.

Inal Khashig: So, for example, a shed on a hectare of land?

Eshsou Kakalia: Yes, if the property has a title and the land is attached to it as an integral part. I’ll say again: by law, the land cannot be sold or used as collateral. But according to the terms outlined in this agreement, the land could effectively become collateral.

Inal Khashig: But how is that possible?

Eshsou Kakalia: That’s exactly the point. This is why we oppose it — not just for this reason, though. There are other provisions we categorically disagree with. We’re often criticized by the government, accused of opposing progress, of being emotional and amateurish. But as experience shows, our concerns were justified. The example with the Pitsunda estate, where authorities dismissed our arguments but were later forced to amend legislation, proves that we were right. This is not the first time we’ve faced such a situation, and this experience clearly shows that our arguments have been valid.

Inal Khashig: In general, is there any specific timeline for parliament to review this agreement?

Eshsou Kakalia: You know, parliament hasn’t set any specific timeline for its review.

Inal Khashig: But, on the other hand, the president has stated that the agreement will be signed soon.

Eshsou Kakalia: How can it be signed if parliament hasn’t yet given its consent? You see, this is a contradiction. It’s like saying, “I no longer play by the legal system; I’m not going to follow democratic norms; I’ll just sign it, and your opinion doesn’t matter.” It’s essentially the same thing.

Inal Khashig: Given the current situation, we’re approaching the presidential election, and the timeline seems a bit vague. I recall Sergei Shamba mentioning that the election would be around the end of January, which means just over two months remain. So, for the president, it’s likely critical that this agreement is approved before the election.

Eshsou Kakalia: Possibly, yes.

Inal Khashig: This agreement will be signed soon, then sent back to parliament. The parliament, which has already submitted 20 remarks and amendments rejected by the government, will have to ratify this document again. Parliament will likely take a firm stance, as it often does, and another conflict will arise. How will the authorities handle this situation? We’re caught in a vicious cycle.

Eshsou Kakalia: Every violation of the law is noted by the public, citizens, organizations, and activists. And each violation has a cumulative effect. History has repeatedly shown that sooner or later, society responds to violations of the law with its own breaches. It’s an axiom; this has always happened everywhere, and we’re no exception. I have no doubt it will happen again.

Inal Khashig: 2014, 2020 — I understand the situation.

“The apartment affair is an aggressive attempt to push legislation through”

Eshsou Kakalia: When we met back in 2020, we proposed an initiative. We spent a long time discussing the need to move away from confrontation. Our initiative was aimed precisely at that. However, the past four years have been marked by constant confrontation. We witnessed the events of 2021, you know? This continuous destabilization of the political situation has become an integral part of our daily life. When arguments run out, the authorities usually resort to force – it’s a fact of life. And as a society, we’re no exception.

The apartment affair is an aggressive attempt to push legislation through. The authorities were forced to withdraw it after encountering public resistance. But they didn’t withdraw it because they realized the idea was flawed; they did it because they understood that persisting would have had consequences for them. So now, society is increasingly questioning: what responsibility does the government bear? What responsibility do specific officials have for initiatives that society must resist? This is a very serious question.

Inal Khashig: Yes, I understand. Sometimes in our society, when a critical point of misunderstanding arises between the government and the people, we end up with events like those of 2014 and 2020. But it’s possible that society is tired of constant setbacks and inefficiencies in the governing system. Those in power sometimes fail to grasp that ignoring corruption and legal nihilism initiates a new wave of dissatisfaction. We keep starting over, and it piles up.

And when the moment of accountability arrives, the question arises: who will answer for the decisions made? Many decisions taken at the top don’t align with our laws, sometimes even our Constitution. Not to mention minor issues, like the government’s complete lack of transparency. There is no access to parliament itself; everything happens behind closed doors. This leads to a situation where society is effectively left out. A circle of people makes decisions, and we, the ordinary citizens, have to live by these laws. This cumulative nature of injustice won’t disappear even if power changes hands. There’s no assurance that any legal assessment will be given of these decisions.

Eshsou Kakalia: These rules of the game will remain.

Inal Khashig: Yes, but will there be a legal assessment of all that has been done?

“The government’s declining approval rating clearly shows that society rejects this policy”

Inal Khashig: I understand, Inal. We discussed this on the Apsny Khabar platform, if I’m not mistaken. We talked about how society has now reached a new level of defending its interests. The government has distanced itself from the people, and society has started to act. People have begun approaching deputies in their districts instead of waiting for decisions within parliament. This is a healthy reaction from society. We have reached a new level, and, by the way, society now demands accountability from those who break the law. This demand has matured, and society will insist on holding people accountable.

The fact that the government retreats to closed rooms and makes decisions behind the scenes won’t go unnoticed. The government’s declining approval rating clearly shows that society rejects this policy. We need to understand that as long as we don’t fully recognize our Constitution and begin to uphold our laws, we will live as you’ve described. This is an important point. No country can develop while ignoring the law. No organization succeeds without following rules. And if a new government, heaven forbid, follows the same path as the current one, it will face the same problems.

Inal Khashig: If this continues, it will lead to the complete collapse of the Abkhaz state. It seems we’re already on the edge of a critical threshold, and you can see this in public sentiment. The mood for protest is intense, and this extends not only to the government but to the entire political class. The problem is that political turnover yields no results. When some leave and others replace them, everything remains the same — old tools, old approaches. Society demands adherence to the Constitution and laws.

We talk about the need for adherence, but personally, I no longer expect anything from the current government. If there is a change in power, it must immediately show its intentions by conducting a review. But unfortunately, we haven’t seen such a review, not in 2014, nor in 2020. We understand that, as before, the government prefers to be a closed club — a party elite ensuring comfortable conditions for itself, uninterested in addressing the issues citizens are signaling. Now, with elections approaching, we’re facing these challenges again, discussing various agreements.

However, over this long period, we haven’t properly addressed a single internal Abkhazian issue. We only talk about things like apartments or investment agreements, but not about broader issues like demographics, repatriation, or combating corruption. I would like our political elite, especially the president, to visit parliament more often and discuss these issues. He should say, “Guys, we need strict laws to put all the corrupt individuals behind bars.” I want to see such a leader for my country. If parliament fails to respond now and allows the president to sign, then once again, parliament will be the one held responsible.

“Every society deserves the government it has”

Eshsou Kakalia: I’ll start by saying that society has lost trust in the entire political spectrum. That’s true, but it’s important to understand that no political team selects itself — it’s chosen by society. And it’s hard to argue with that. Every society deserves the government it has. When voters cast their ballots based on family ties or financial interests, rather than on objectivity and integrity, we get what we have. It wasn’t hard to foresee this outcome. If voters elect those who have already discredited themselves, the result is predictable.

As for parliament, it must of course defend its position, especially when it comes to the rule of law. Saying that the president doesn’t come to parliament or discuss important issues like demographics is a violation of the law. He is required to report to parliament on his work at least once a year. In my memory, there was only one such address, and that only after the opposition pointed it out. Parliament should see not only the president, but other key leaders as well, who are required to report on their work and plans. This too is written in our laws.

When I ran for office, I promised to open a public reception office and report to voters. When people told me this was a great initiative, I would respond that it wasn’t just my goodwill, but a responsibility written in the law. Unfortunately, we often don’t see such simple things, and that’s very dangerous for societal development. The investment agreement isn’t objectively aimed at protecting the interests of Abkhazian society.

Inal Khashig: I have to set some boundaries for our conversation, as it’s coming to an end. Today we talked about the agreement and about how we can live going forward so that the country is comfortable not just for the authorities but for ordinary citizens too. I remind you that the program is available on the “Chegem Pravda” YouTube channel and on the newspaper’s Facebook page. You can also read it on our website “Chegem Pravda.” My commentary can be found on the Telegram channel “Inal Khashig — Chegem Pravda.” Since YouTube is restricted in Russia, we also post broadcasts on other platforms. Thank you for your attention, and until next time.

Investment Agreement