Hong Kong has always been a society based on the rule of law. The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is in charge of criminal prosecutions without any interference; it makes independent decisions in its prosecutorial work and on each law case based on facts, evidence and applicable laws.
In the case of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is facing charges of endangering national security under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), Lai’s legal team and his son Sebastian Lai have recently continued to maneuver in the United Kingdom actively, soliciting foreign intervention in the case. His legal team has written to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak requesting an urgent meeting about “potential ways to secure Mr Lai’s release”. His legal team are trying to exonerate Lai by putting pressure on the British government to interfere in the HKSAR’s judicial operation. On Jan 11, Sunak claimed that, by virtue of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the UK has the right to intervene in the HKSAR’s affairs.
The truth is, the UK has had neither rights nor obligations to have a hand in Hong Kong affairs since the city’s return to China, when those rights and obligations were essentially placed under the scope of the People’s Republic of China’s sovereignty. The Joint Declaration certainly does not empower the British government to intervene in court proceedings in the HKSAR. Sunak undoubtedly misquoted the Joint Declaration and made a false statement about the UK’s right to intervene in Lai’s case.
As Article 3(3) of the Joint Declaration clearly states, “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.” After the return of Hong Kong to China, the central government empowered the HKSAR to set up a Court of Final Appeal, which exercises the power of final adjudication in Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration does not empower the British government to intervene in the Hong Kong SAR’s court cases.
Second, it is a poor calculation of Lai’s legal team to request foreign intervention in Hong Kong’s judicial process. Lai is charged with collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security. Ironically, the legal team’s efforts to leverage foreign influence and pressure to get Lai off the hook further prove their client’s criminality; they have inadvertently presented further evidence to support the charge of collusion. More importantly, such maneuvers show the legal team’s contempt for the HKSAR’s judicial independence and directly challenge the city’s rule of law.
Third, Lai’s legal team have not handled the case professionally and in accordance with the law. They are attempting to harness the political prejudice of foreign politicians to the advantage of Lai. This is why Beijing was concerned about overseas lawyers’ participation in national security cases. Lai insisted on employing a British lawyer, Timothy Owen, despite the latter’s lack of qualifications to practice in Hong Kong. The interpretation of the NSL by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) has in effect plugged a legal loophole that would have allowed outside influence on Hong Kong’s judicial operation.
The HKSAR government recently asserted that any defendant attempting to seek help from or collude with foreign forces to evade criminal justice is undermining the rule of law in the Hong Kong SAR and interfering in its internal affairs; such acts very likely constitute contempt of court.
Hong Kong is a society under the rule of law. The NSL has been in force for more than two years. Laws must be upheld, and anyone who has broken the law must be prosecuted. When the NPCSC was about to interpret the NSL at the HKSAR government’s request, some said that the law and politics should be separate, and that the central government should not interfere. The truth is, Lai’s legal team have proved that both they and some foreign politicians are trying to politicize the case. Contrary to what the critics said, the NPCSC interpretation is imperative and helpful to safeguard Hong Kong’s judicial independence.
The author, a radiologist, is a co-founder of the Hong Kong Coalition and a council member of the Chinese Young Entrepreneurs Association.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.