By Carmen Kan
1. In light of the sentencing scheduled for the coming Monday (Feb 9) in the proceedings concerning Lai Chee-ying, there has been a notable increase in international discourse and public commentary. It is, therefore, imperative that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary—as constitutionally enshrined under the Basic Law—be clearly reaffirmed.
2. During his speech at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026, The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, GBM, responded to external commentaries regarding the prosecution and verdicts of the courts and the rule of law in Hong Kong generally. He said, "Hong Kong's Basic Law and general laws, along with the national security laws, all guarantee the independence and impartiality of the courts, and the right to a fair trial. They require that court decisions be based on the evidence and legal arguments presented, and not on extraneous considerations or public pressure." This serves as the absolute constitutional baseline, the validity of which is self-evident and independent of external affirmation.
3. Notwithstanding all endeavors to emphasize the HKSAR's commitment to a judiciary governed strictly by legal principle and evidentiary merit, blatantly disparaging narratives continue. Recently, the European Parliament passed a so-called "resolution on the conviction and imminent sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong". Not to mention how the LAI Case is an internal affair of HKSAR and meddling in constitutes serious interference in Hong Kong's judiciary, facts are merely distorted, driven by political factors. In response, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong made it clear that "Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law, and no one has the privilege of being above the law" and "The trial process was open and transparent, and the Hong Kong judiciary rendered a fair conviction verdict based on substantial and sufficient factual evidence, which is beyond reproach."
4. In the context of the LAI case per se, the trial was conducted over 156 days in open court ("Court"), including 52 days of testimony from the defendant himself. Following the closing submissions in August, the designated judges engaged in a rigorous four-month evidentiary and legal assessment, where "the Court only considered the law and evidence", before rendering a verdict. This extensive process exemplifies the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality and embodies the rule of law in action.
5. The Court also stressed that what LAI had done or said before the HKSAR National Security Law (NSL) was not the subject matter of the charges but only as background to the evidence relevant to the charges. The judgment clearly demonstrates that following the implementation of the NSL, the defendant continued to manifest the intent, purpose, and act to commit acts endangering national security—actions that fall well beyond the boundaries of legal permissibility.
6. It must be stressed again that while the Court found the prosecution witnesses to be honest and reliable after an extensive cross-examination, the press summary of the judgment clearly states that the Court found LAI's evidence to be contradictory and inconsistent, and that he was evasive and unreliable in many instances. The Court rejected his evidence.
7. In the meantime, one must be alerted when the narrative of press freedom has been instrumentalized to divert attention from the substantive legal issues and to obscure factual realities. The LAI Case is a criminal case, not a political case—Lai was not on trial for his political views or beliefs. Both the NSL and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance are predicated on the constitutional requirement that national security be upheld in tandem with the protection of human rights. These laws provide explicit safeguards for the rights and freedoms——including freedoms of the press, speech, and publication——of Hong Kong residents as enshrined in the Basic Law and the two International Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) as applied to the HKSAR. In time, malicious accusations and slander will not stand up to scrutiny. The rule of law in Hong Kong, as evidenced by the independence of our judiciary, remains a cornerstone of Hong Kong's success.
Along with the public, I await the Court's sentencing.
The author is a LegCo Member. The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Related News:
Opinion | Travel advice to Western leaders: 'Always wear a green hat when coming to China'
Comment