The West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts today handed down the final sentences in the case involving the Hong Kong Alliance (the Alliance) and its leaders Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung, who have been charged with "incitement to subversion".
The Alliance was fined HK$1.5 million. Lee was sentenced to seven years in prison, Ho to five years and two months, and Chow to seven years and three months.
The verdicts and sentences were based on the defendants' criminal conduct over an extended period and delivered in accordance with the Hong Kong National Security Law and established common law procedures. They were grounded in both the facts of the case and the applicable law.
More importantly, the judgment sends a clear message: the national security law in Hong Kong is not open to challenge. The city's security, stability and continued development are not only legal imperatives, but increasingly the common aspiration of Hong Kong society.
A case grounded in law, not politics
Between July 1, 2020, and Sept. 8, 2021, the defendants—the Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung—incited others to organize, plan, implement or participate in acts through unlawful means with the aim of subverting state power.
The alleged objective was not a matter of political expression. It was to overthrow or undermine the fundamental system of the People's Republic of China established by the Constitution, or to overthrow the central state authorities.
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the country. At the core of China's constitutional order is the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC and the People's Republic of China constitute an inseparable constitutional whole. No individual or organization can lawfully seek to overthrow the Party's leadership or undermine the country's fundamental system.
That constitutional reality also applies to the HKSAR. As a special administrative region under China's sovereignty, the city's constitutional order is founded jointly on the Constitution and the Basic Law. Together, they provide the constitutional foundation for the implementation of "one country, two systems" and the institutional basis for its continued success.
Article 22 of the Hong Kong National Security Law prohibits organizing, planning, implementing or participating in acts carried out through force, threats of force or other unlawful means to overthrow or undermine the fundamental system of the People's Republic of China established by the Constitution.
Against that legal framework, the court's finding that the Alliance's activities were aimed at undermining China's fundamental system was neither arbitrary nor political. It was a conclusion reached through the application of the law to the facts of the case.
The evidence and the defendants' own conduct
The court had already made clear in its earlier judgment that the defendants intended and believed that those they had incited would use unlawful means if they acted on their exhortations, with the ultimate aim of subverting the state power led by the CPC.
The court also found that the defendants had for years sought to stir up hostility and division and incite hatred in pursuit of their objective. Even after the National Security Law came into force, they did not stop. Instead, they continued the activities of the Alliance.
The conduct of Ho Chun-yan is particularly noteworthy. As a senior legal professional, Ho was well placed to understand the legal implications of his actions. He pleaded guilty before the trial began. That plea constituted a direct acknowledgement of the facts underlying the charge and further demonstrated the strength of the prosecution's case.
The Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, by contrast, stood trial and were subsequently convicted. Their convictions reflected the court's examination of the evidence and its independent determination that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
This distinction matters. A conviction following a full trial is not a political declaration. It is a judicial finding reached after evidence has been tested against the relevant legal standard.
The court repeatedly stressed throughout the proceedings that the defendants were not being tried because of their political views or beliefs. The sole question was whether the prosecution could prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the relevant law and evidence.
That point directly addresses claims that the case amounted to a "political trial". The court's reasoning demonstrates otherwise: the case was determined through judicial proceedings, evidence and legal standards.
Rule of law means the law applies to all
The broader significance of the judgment lies in what it says about the rule of law.
Political slogans, shifting narratives or attempts to recast criminal conduct as political expression cannot alter the legal nature of an offence. Where conduct endangers national security and falls within the scope of the law, it must be dealt with accordingly.
Hong Kong's courts have also made clear that the National Security Law operates within the city's established judicial framework. Although the prosecution was brought under the National Security Law, the proceedings followed Hong Kong's established common law procedures. Hearings were conducted in open court, and the court applied common law principles in interpreting and applying the legislation.
The defendants' right of appeal was likewise preserved. These safeguards demonstrate that national security and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, safeguarding national security through established legal procedures is itself an expression of the rule of law.
Stability creates the conditions for development
The case has also attracted criticism from some anti-China forces, including overseas actors, who have sought to comment on the proceedings, exert pressure on judges and portray Hong Kong's national security policies in ways that do not reflect the facts.
Attempts to influence judicial proceedings through political pressure are themselves incompatible with the principle of judicial independence and the rule of law. Such conduct does little to advance a genuine discussion about Hong Kong's future. Instead, it reinforces the importance of ensuring that national security and the legal order are properly protected.
Hong Kong has now entered a period of development in which stability and prosperity are increasingly reinforcing each other. Businesses, investors and the wider community need a stable environment in which economic activity can flourish and long-term plans can be made.
The latest economic figures point in that direction. Hong Kong's GDP grew by 5.9% year on year in the first quarter of 2026, the strongest growth in nearly five years. The city also retained its position as the world's third-largest international financial centre.
These indicators matter because economic competitiveness does not exist in a vacuum. A secure and stable society provides the foundation on which businesses invest, markets operate and people plan for the future.
A stable Hong Kong looking outward
At the same time, Hong Kong is becoming increasingly integrated into the country's broader development strategy.
For the first time, the SAR Government has formulated a five-year development plan for Hong Kong, aligning the city's development with the country's 15th Five-Year Plan. The aim is to accelerate the transition from stability and order towards prosperity while strengthening Hong Kong's traditional advantages as an international financial, shipping and trading centre.
The city's role in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is also expanding. The Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou innovation cluster has once again ranked first globally, while construction of the Northern Metropolis is moving ahead at full speed.
The Northern Metropolis is expected to become a major strategic growth area for Hong Kong, helping the city overcome development constraints and deepen integration and cooperation with Shenzhen and other Greater Bay Area cities. In doing so, it can strengthen Hong Kong's competitiveness and long-term capacity for sustainable development.
This is the broader context in which the Hong Kong Alliance judgment should be viewed.
Security and prosperity are not competing goals
The court's verdicts and sentences in the Alliance case are significant not simply because they conclude a high-profile national security case, but because they reaffirm a fundamental principle: development requires stability, and stability requires a legal order capable of protecting national security.
A city cannot expect sustained economic growth while leaving fundamental questions of security and constitutional order unresolved. Nor can the rule of law be reduced to protecting individual rights while disregarding the laws that safeguard the constitutional order itself.
Hong Kong's future competitiveness will depend on its ability to maintain both.
For its 7.5 million residents, a Hong Kong that is safe, stable and governed by the rule of law provides the conditions for people to live and work with confidence. For international investors, it provides a predictable environment in which capital can operate and opportunities can be developed.
As Hong Kong continues to integrate into the country's broader development, it is increasingly well positioned to play a greater role in the nation's modernization and contribute to its long-term development and prosperity.
Related News:
'HK Alliance' leaders sentenced to up to 7 years 3 months over subversion case
Comment