Carmen Kan says malicious accusations of and slanders against Hong Kong’s judicial system will not stand up to scrutiny

Before and after the sentencing of Jimmy Lai Chee-ying on Monday, his national security case had again aroused intense attention from and discourse among overseas media outlets, many of which are maliciously critical of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative that the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary — as enshrined in the Basic Law — be clearly reaffirmed, with lies and half-truths being debunked.

At the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026 last month, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung responded to foreign commentaries regarding verdicts handed down by Hong Kong courts and the rule of law in Hong Kong in general. 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 elaboration reflects a constitutional baseline, the validity of which is self-evident and independent of external affirmation.

Notwithstanding all endeavors to emphasize the HKSAR’s commitment to a judicial system governed strictly by legal principles and evidentiary merit, blatantly disparaging narratives on the city’s judicial system continue. For instance, the European Parliament recently adopted a so-called "resolution on the conviction and imminent sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong". Not to mention that Lai’s case is an internal affair of the HKSAR, and meddling in it constitutes serious interference in Hong Kong's judicial system; facts are rampantly distorted in the resolution, cooked up by China hawks for political ends. In response, the Office of the Commissioner of China’s Foreign Ministry in the Hong Kong SAR 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.”

In the context of Lai’s case per se, the trial conducted over 156 days in open court, including 52 days of testimony from Lai himself. Following the closing submissions in August 2025, the three 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 and meticulous process exemplifies the principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality, and embodies the rule of law in action.

The court also stressed that what Lai had done or said before the implementation of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) were not the subject matters 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, Lai continued to manifest the intent, purpose, and acts aimed at endangering national security — actions that fall well beyond the boundaries of legal permissibility.

It must be stressed again that the court found the prosecution witnesses to be honest and reliable after an extensive cross-examination, whereas 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 thus rejected his evidence.

In the meantime, one must be alert when the narrative of “press freedom” has been instrumentalized to divert attention from the substantive legal issues and to obscure factual realities. Lai’s case is a criminal case, not a “political case” as claimed by foreign critics — 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 (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) as applied to the HKSAR. Malicious accusations of and slanders against Hong Kong’s judicial system will not stand up to scrutiny. The rule of law in Hong Kong as evidenced by the judicial independence demonstrated by the Judiciary remains a cornerstone of Hong Kong's success.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and chairperson of its Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.