The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is set to review the convictions of 11 pan-democratic activists found guilty of subversion under the national security law imposed by China in 2020. The decision follows a ruling by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal, which recognized points of law warranting consideration by the apex court. The 11 appellants are part of a larger group of 45 activists convicted in November 2024 for their involvement in a primary election orchestrated by the pan-democratic camp in July 2020.
This case centers on the national security law, specifically Article 22, which criminalizes acts deemed to threaten state power, including subversion. The upcoming appeal has highlighted critical legal issues, such as the definitions of “unlawful means” and “subversive intent.” Lower courts had dismissed arguments from the defense, asserting that “unlawful means” does not require a criminal offense per se, suggesting instead that abusing legislative power constitutes an unlawful act. They further determined that a strategy to block the government’s budget as a means of protest against chief executive Carrie Lam met the criteria for subversion.
The case traces back to the “35+ Scheme” primary election held by the pan-democratic camp, which aimed to secure a majority in the legislature and leverage their position by declining the government budget unless their demands were addressed. This approach raised questions about the legality of the electoral tactic within the framework of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. According to that law, if the legislature rejects the budget, the chief executive has the authority to dissolve it. A successive rejection by a newly elected legislature would mandate the chief executive’s resignation.
Amidst these legal proceedings, the broader implications of the National Security Law reverberate, with the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) retaining interpretive powers over the law’s clauses, as stipulated in Article 65. This factor poses additional questions about whether the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal might seek guidance from the NPCSC on interpreting the legal stipulations involved in this case. Further insights can be gleaned from JURIST.
The unfolding appeal not only challenges the Hong Kong judiciary’s role under the national security law but also may have substantial ramifications for the city’s legal landscape, especially concerning the scope of political freedoms and judicial independence in Hong Kong’s evolving relationship with Beijing. As legal circles closely monitor, the outcome may set significant precedents for future interpretations of subversion and political dissent within the territory. These developments have captured attention beyond local borders, as shown in the coverage by Reuters.