The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has recently delivered a verdict finding Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan, and the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance guilty under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law (NSL). The charges revolve around their involvement in organizing peaceful vigils commemorating the Tiananmen Square crackdown of June 4, 1989. According to the court’s ruling, their advocacy for the end of China’s one-party rule equates to incitement to subversion, given the perception that such advocacy aims to undermine China’s basic political structure.
Defense arguments centered on the Chinese Constitution, particularly Article 2, which states that all power belongs to the people. However, the court’s interpretation also considered the 2018 amendment to Article 1, emphasizing the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership as central to the nation’s identity. Thus, the assertion that the Alliance’s actions contravened the Chinese Constitution led to this significant ruling.
Hong Kong’s legal framework under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle complicated the ruling further. Although the Basic Law, notably Article 18, states that Chinese national laws generally do not apply in Hong Kong, the judges decided that laws compatible with this framework were relevant, hence the conviction. The legal reasoning extends to the notion that even actions not overtly violent can still be unconstitutional if they are considered seditious by intent, a point that awaits further elucidation from Hong Kong’s apex court.
This decision is part of a broader legal and political context. The Hong Kong government expressed approval of the verdict, interpreting it as a defense against hostility towards the Chinese government and its foundational principles. Amnesty International, however, criticized the ruling as a systematic effort to suppress activism seeking accountability for historical government actions.
The defendants have faced charges under Article 22 of the National Security Law since September 2021. Despite another former chairman, Albert Ho Chun-yan, pleading guilty, Chow and Lee stood firm in their not guilty pleas. Their prolonged detainment, over a span of years, underscores the contentious nature of their trial and Hong Kong’s evolving legal landscape.
For decades, the Hong Kong Alliance organized annual vigils for the Tiananmen victims. However, actions by former Chief Executive Carrie Lam, citing national security concerns, led to the disbanding of the Alliance. The implications of this court ruling resonate beyond the immediate parties, reflecting on the local and international discourse surrounding Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom of expression in the shadow of national security considerations.