Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, in his address at the opening of Legal Year 2026 on Monday, said that Hong Kong’s rule of law is “more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case”. He reaffirmed that all rulings are based solely on the law and the evidence presented in open court, free from political or other external influence, and that defendants retain the right to appeal. His remarks underscore the Judiciary’s unwavering commitment to upholding legal principles through careful interpretation and transparent reasoning — ensuring that public confidence in Hong Kong’s courts rests on the enduring strength of its institutions.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has long been defined by the strength of its rule of law and the independence of its Judiciary. These are not abstract ideals but practical foundations that shape daily life, business confidence and social trust. In recent years, and especially following moments of crisis and political change, questions have been raised about whether these foundations remain solid.

Careful assessment shows that the SAR’s legal system continues to function with clarity, professionalism and independence. Its political processes operate within a well-established constitutional framework.

The rule of law in Hong Kong rests on clear principles. Laws are publicly promulgated, applied consistently and interpreted by an independent Judiciary. Courts continue to adjudicate cases based on evidence, statute and precedent, without interference. Judges are appointed through established procedures and come from diverse professional backgrounds, including common law jurisdictions. The continued presence of overseas nonpermanent judges in the Court of Final Appeal further reflects confidence in the system and reinforces its international credibility. These features are not symbolic. They affect how contracts are enforced, how disputes are resolved and how rights are protected.

The considerable success of “one country, two systems” is acknowledged by most, and the SAR engages with the State on the basis of the shared goal of working toward the betterment of the nation.

The robust legal system, with its rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary, is essential to every case the court has been working on, especially the high-profile case resulting in Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s conviction.

Also, the constitutional framework for the SAR’s legal system is provided by the Basic Law enacted by the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature, in accordance with Article 31 of the country’s Constitution. The Constitution and the Basic Law together form the constitutional basis of the SAR.

In every jurisdiction, courts occasionally deliver decisions that provoke controversy. The true measure of judicial independence lies in the integrity of the process, the soundness of the reasoning, and the consistency of its application — not in whether outcomes align with particular political preferences. By these standards, Hong Kong’s Judiciary continues to meet international benchmarks

When it comes to the Judiciary, as prescribed in the Basic Law, the SAR has been authorized by the NPC to exercise independent judicial power, including the power of final adjudication. It has also been stated in express terms that the courts of the city shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the Judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions.

However, in recent times, Western commentators have implied — or even claimed — that Hong Kong lacks a proper rule of law, that its legal system is flawed, and that its Judiciary is not truly independent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Hong Kong, judicial independence is not merely a claim but a demonstrated practice. Court judgments are detailed, well-reasoned, and subject to appeal. Their decisions do not always satisfy all parties — often a sign that the courts are fulfilling their duties rather than yielding to pressure. Businesses continue to choose Hong Kong as a venue for arbitration and litigation because outcomes remain predictable and firmly grounded in law. International companies also rely on Hong Kong law to govern their contracts — a choice they would not make lightly if their confidence were misplaced.

Some voices outside Hong Kong argue that judicial independence has been eroded simply because certain cases — particularly Lai’s conviction under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law — have drawn political attention. Such claims often mistake dissatisfaction with a ruling for evidence of bias. In every jurisdiction, courts occasionally deliver decisions that provoke controversy. The true measure of judicial independence lies in the integrity of the process, the soundness of the reasoning, and the consistency of its application — not in whether outcomes align with particular political preferences. By these standards, Hong Kong’s Judiciary continues to meet international benchmarks.

This secured the city’s 24th place in the 2025 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. It came sixth out of the 15 places surveyed in the East Asia and Pacific region.

Furthermore, Hong Kong’s legal system maintains notable strength in alternative dispute resolution. Over the years, the Department of Justice has made consistent efforts to enhance the city’s standing as a leading center for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region. A number of highly respected international institutions have chosen Hong Kong as their first location outside their home jurisdictions, further reinforcing its role as a premier hub for legal and dispute resolution services both within the region and globally.

The recent elections, the ongoing work of the Judiciary, and the city’s collective response to the Tai Po fire tragedy last November all point to the same conclusion: Hong Kong’s rule of law stands firm. Its judicial institutions remain independent, and its political processes function within a legal framework designed to promote stability and progress. Differences from Western models do not weaken these truths; instead, they reflect distinct historical paths and priorities, each shaped to serve the public good.

Hong Kong has faced difficult times, yet it has consistently shown resilience and maturity. By reaffirming trust in the rule of law and finding unity in times of loss, the city is moving forward with renewed confidence. Unity does not erase grief, but it infuses recovery with meaning. Law does not eliminate disagreement, but it provides the means to resolve it. These enduring strengths have defined Hong Kong for decades — and they remain firmly in place today.

The author is a fintech adviser, a researcher and a former business analyst for a Hong Kong publicly listed company.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.