On Monday, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region meted out a sentence in Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s national security case, sentencing him to 20 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to collude with external forces to endanger national security and conspiring to publish seditious publications. As a landmark case involving conduct that endangered national security in Hong Kong, the verdict has been closely scrutinized both locally and internationally. Beyond the political noise surrounding the case, the judgment handed down in December 2025 offers an important window into the current condition of Hong Kong’s rule of law — its authority, fairness, independence, and institutional resilience. The handling of Lai’s case underscores the continued capacity of Hong Kong’s courts to adjudicate complex national security-related cases through established legal principles, evidentiary standards, and rigorous procedural safeguards.

Legal authority and institutional integrity

Lai’s case arose from conduct that, according to the court’s findings, went far beyond the expression of political views. After the implementation of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) in June 2020, Lai continued to use his media platform, Apple Daily, to incite hostility, glorify violence, and orchestrate and promote unlawful confrontations. The court found that he openly sought sanctions and other hostile measures against China including the HKSAR, and that he had published more than one hundred seditious articles on his media platforms aimed at inciting hatred toward the central and HKSAR governments. He had no qualms about openly declaring in a CNN interview that “we in Hong Kong are fighting for the shared values of the US against China. We are fighting their war in the enemy camp”, and had gone so far as to suggest that the United States could consider using nuclear weapons against the Chinese mainland.

At the height of the “black-clad riots”, which Lai helped mastermind and bankroll, Hong Kong plunged into sustained turmoil and widespread violence. Even after the enactment of the NSL, Lai showed no restraint in his illegal endeavors. The court found that he persisted in publishing inflammatory articles and commentaries, continuing to solicit foreign intervention and sanctions, despite knowing the legal consequences.

The court’s conviction rested on extensive factual findings. The written judgment — spanning 855 pages — set out in detail the evidentiary basis for each element of the offences. On the issue of collusion with external forces alone, the court devoted some 10 pages to its factual conclusions, supported by more than 300 pages of evidentiary analysis. The judgment demonstrated a methodical and transparent application of substantive law to the established facts. This was not a summary or symbolic ruling, but a legally reasoned decision grounded in documentary evidence, witness testimony, and established legal standards.

In this context, the verdict reaffirmed a fundamental principle of the rule of law: Judicial authority derives from the consistent and reasoned application of duly enacted laws to established facts, and from the institutional responsibility to safeguard order, security, and justice.

Equality before the law and procedural justice

At the heart of any credible legal system lies the principle that all persons are equal before the law. Status, wealth, or international prominence cannot confer immunity from legal accountability.

The court record showed that Lai acted on behalf of external forces in Hong Kong and effectively positioned himself as their local “agent”. He relied on the expectation of overseas backing and refused to plead guilty. Instead, his defense strategy relied heavily on external political pressure and international advocacy rather than legal exculpation. His family, according to publicly documented actions, placed their hopes in intervention by foreign patrons and, to this day, have continued lobbying overseas political forces to interfere in the judicial process, seeking to elevate political considerations above legal reasoning.

Despite the seriousness of the offenses and repeated calls for extrajudicial exoneration, Lai was afforded full procedural protections. His legal rights as a defendant and as a prisoner were fully observed. The trial was conducted publicly, the reasoning explained in detail, and the sentence calibrated to the gravity of the proven offenses. Justice, in this case, was not merely reflected in the outcome but embedded throughout the process. That commitment to due process reinforces public confidence in the system’s fairness.

Judicial independence and resilience of rule of law

Few cases in recent years have attracted comparable international attention or sustained external pressure. Throughout the proceedings, a small number of hostile foreign political forces and affiliated advocacy groups criticized the Hong Kong Judiciary, threatened sanctions against legal professionals, and repeatedly called for intervention. Disregarding basic principles of the rule of law, these hostile forces attempted to recast Lai as a “political prisoner” or a “democracy and human rights advocate”. They continuously circulated misleading claims, including allegations of prolonged detention, deteriorating health, harsh detention conditions, denial of religious services, and violations of prisoner rights. Lai’s age was repeatedly amplified to evoke sympathy, in an effort to manufacture grounds for leniency or even exoneration. Open threats of sanctions and overt political pressure against judicial officials accompanied these fake narratives.  

These efforts failed to influence the judicial process. As Andrew Cheung Kun-nung, chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal, observed earlier this year, courts adjudicate cases solely on the basis of facts and evidence. Demands for early release on extraneous grounds strike at the core of judicial independence, while threats of sanctions constitute interference fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.

Lai’s verdict illustrates that Hong Kong’s courts continue to function independently of such pressures. Neither international lobbying nor coercive political tactics altered the judicial process. This institutional steadiness is not incidental; it is a hallmark of a mature legal system capable of withstanding external interference.

A legal system tested and affirmed

The rule of law has long been central to Hong Kong’s success and social stability. Lai’s case placed that system under intense strain — politically, diplomatically, and rhetorically. That it emerged intact speaks to its underlying strength.

Legal systems are not measured by the absence of difficult cases, but by how they handle them. In applying the law consistently, safeguarding due process, and maintaining judicial independence amid unprecedented scrutiny, Hong Kong’s courts demonstrated resilience.

Discussion surrounding the NSL has continued in some quarters, often driven by selective narratives and external political agendas. Lai’s verdict itself, however, should be assessed on what it represents in legal terms: A court applying the law to the facts before it, without fear or favor. For Hong Kong’s future, that remains the most consequential signal of all.

The author is a current affairs commentator.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.