“If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.” Francis Bacon’s insight in 17th-century England is equally valid in Hong Kong in 2020. The Court of Final Appeal brought justice back to the city on Monday when it ruled that it was constitutional for the government of the special administrative region to invoke the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to impose a mask ban at the height of the street violence in October 2019.

The justice, although it arrived in the final days of an eventful 2020, settled the matter once and for all, and lit the light at the end of the tunnel as Hong Kong is wading through the aftermath of a yearlong social unrest amid an economically crippling pandemic. The vast majority of local residents and lawmakers expressed their approval of the top court’s ruling as pro-establishment councilors immediately announced they will back the verdict. 

The unanimity in the five-judge panel’s verdict at the Court of Final Appeal demonstrates that the city is getting back to law and justice, which has been the outcry of peace-loving people in Hong Kong for months, if not years. The verdict read, “The interests of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity.” All law-abiding citizens will find it reassuring since their greatest concern amid the turmoil is nothing but restoring law and order in the city.

The Court of Final Appeal ends the yearlong controversy surrounding the government’s move to quell the illegal activities by invoking the ERO to prohibit face coverings at demonstrations. Over the months, the opposition camp’s pretext of “protecting human rights” has served as a handy tool for the naysayers to smear the SAR government’s legal exertion of power in an unprecedented social crisis, and they conveniently ignore the fact that invoking the ERO was solid evidence of the “one country, two systems” principle.

Facts are facts. The judges have finally acknowledged the truth that “the situation on the streets and in other public places in Hong Kong had become dire” because of the rampant street violence and mass defiance of the rule of law. By holding that the government’s ban on face-covering was “clearly proportionate”, the court ruled that the ambit of the power to make subsidiary legislation was “not unconstitutional”. When the truth is in action, there is justice.

It can be logically estimated that should justice come earlier, law and order will definitely be restored sooner. Maintaining justice is no easy task for Hong Kong, but the citizens may still breathe a sigh of relief even though justice is a little delayed.