Does Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is currently on trial for certain offenses under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, enjoy a right of direct access to British consular advice in Hong Kong, related to that trial? This claim is advanced by a range of Lai’s supporters, including his London-based international legal team.

The crux of the argument is that Lai “became a full British citizen in 1994 and has never held a Chinese passport”. This immediately presents a serious hurdle: I am unaware of any jurisdiction that stipulates that the acquisition of citizenship can only be triggered by an application for a passport within that jurisdiction.

Acquisition of citizenship and acquisition of a passport are, within any given jurisdiction, related; however, they are universally treated as entirely separate processes, where the acquisition of citizenship logically precedes the acquisition of a passport.

The public record, and supporting advocates, have confirmed that Lai was born in Guangzhou to Chinese parents in December 1947, and entered British-ruled Hong Kong (where he eventually became a successful businessman and media magnate) 12 years later. Article 4 of the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China (CNL) stipulates that any person born in China of Chinese parents shall have Chinese nationality.

None of Lai’s supporters, who have urged British consular intervention in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, has ever argued that he never acquired Chinese nationality, likely because this argument is untenable. However, to circumvent this difficulty, another recently published opinion argues that: “On paper, mainland Chinese citizens who acquire foreign nationality are presumed to have automatically lost their Chinese citizenship.”

According to Henley & Partners, a British migration consultancy, a significant number of jurisdictions worldwide do not allow dual citizenship, including India, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and China. Article 3 of the CNL confirms this.

What the CNL plainly does not do is confirm that when a Chinese citizen acquires a foreign nationality, they are “presumed to have automatically lost their Chinese citizenship”.

Lai may prefer not to be a Chinese national, but upon examining the facts as they are known and the relevant laws, it is clear that he has remained a Chinese citizen throughout his life. His supporters, not least those who are legally trained in London, must surely be aware of this

What Article 9 of the CNL actually says is that: “Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will shall automatically lose Chinese nationality.” Note the central requirement that any Chinese national covered by Article 9 must have “settled abroad” for that article to apply.

In fact, Lai has repeatedly stressed that he is a “Hong Konger” and is fully committed to staying in Hong Kong indefinitely. He has ardently declined to settle abroad and emphasized his extraordinary commitment to Hong Kong in adopting this approach. A documentary made several years ago by the Acton Institute about Lai is titled The Hong Konger.

Article 10 of the CNL allows Chinese nationals to apply to renounce their Chinese nationality (under certain conditions). The Chinese authorities must then approve any such application. No one arguing in favor of Lai’s right to British consular access has argued that this process has ever been initiated, let alone completed.

Is Article 10 unreasonably demanding? Certainly not, compared to procedures in the United States. America allows its citizens to hold a passport from another jurisdiction, but it imposes stringent rules on any US citizen (by birth or otherwise) who wants to relinquish their US citizenship. There is certainly no automatic process for losing citizenship. Anyone wishing to terminate their American citizenship must personally initiate this procedure, which is complex and can be significantly expensive.

Lai may prefer not to be a Chinese national, but upon examining the facts as they are known and the relevant laws, it is clear that he has remained a Chinese citizen throughout his life. His supporters, not least those who are legally trained in London, must surely be aware of this.

One way to understand what this investigation reveals is to imagine a US citizen, let’s call him John Doe, who has been charged with a serious crime, allegedly committed in the US. Next, imagine that John Doe also holds a British passport. Now imagine that John Doe argues in the US that he has a right to be granted access to British consular officials based in America to support him, as a US citizen, when responding to being charged with a US crime in America. We can be confident that the American diplomatic, prosecutorial, and judicial authorities would swiftly confirm that he, as a US citizen, has no right to any such foreign consular access.

The author is an adjunct professor in the faculty of law at the University of Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.