The West Kowloon Court on Monday sentenced Jimmy Lai Chee-ying to 20 years in prison — the heaviest penalty ever imposed under Hong Kong SAR National Security Law. The sentence was handed down by three designated High Court judges in an hour-long hearing, and brought to a close the most consequential national security case since the law’s enactment in 2020. It is a verdict that affirms, with unmistakable clarity, that no individual, regardless of status or background, stands above the law.

The facts of the case are neither ambiguous nor in dispute. Lai, the 78-year-old founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily, was convicted in December 2025 of two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious materials. The three judges delivered an 856-page verdict after a trial lasting 156 days— a process that was exhaustive, transparent, and firmly grounded in evidentiary reasoning. The evidence presented in open court painted a clear picture: Lai leveraged his media empire and international political connections — from former US officials to British advocacy groups — to actively lobby foreign governments for sanctions against China, while simultaneously using the media platform to incite public disorder and undermine governmental authority. The 20-year sentence reflects the gravity of these offenses and the court’s determination to uphold the rule of law.

What deserves emphasis here is the rigor with which the judicial process was conducted.  Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, chief justice of the jurisdiction, addressed the international criticism surrounding the case head-on in his speech at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2026. He stressed that courts concern themselves “only with the law and the evidence, not with any underlying matters of politics, policies or other non-legal considerations ”. He further noted that the defendants retain the right to appeal, and that the appellate courts will act with integrity in handling any such reviews — the language of a system that treats its common-law heritage with caution and resolution.

Indeed, the chief justice offered a pointed rebuttal to the chorus of foreign critics who smeared the rule of law in Hong Kong on the basis of this single verdict. He remarked that such claims are untenable, and that the SAR’s rule of law is “far more robust and enduring than the outcome of any single case”.

Those who genuinely care about Hong Kong’s prosperity should welcome a legal system that holds all individuals accountable, rather than one swayed by external political pressure

The chief justice is right: A legal system is not measured by whether its outcomes satisfy every foreign observer; it is measured by whether it applies the law equally, follows due process, and opens itself to scrutiny. On each of these counts, the Lai trial has met the standard.

Yet the case has inevitably drawn external interference disguised as concern. Some political figures even called for Lai's release, which, however diplomatically framed, is precisely the kind of political pressure that Cheung warned against. Demands to prematurely release a convicted defendant on the basis of his political identity or foreign citizenship, as the chief justice put it, “not only circumvent the legal procedures established to ensure accountability under the law, but also strike at the very heart of the rule of law itself”. The threats of sanctions against Hong Kong’s judges, meanwhile, were condemned as attempts to interfere with judicial independence.

The Lai case embodies the principle of protecting the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Contrary to accusations from some Western media that it targeted journalism, the lawful prosecution addressed a coordinated conspiracy to seek foreign interference in China’s internal affairs — an act that would constitute a criminal offense in almost any jurisdiction worldwide. No democratic country would tolerate a media proprietor who actively conspired with foreign governments to impose economic sanctions on his own society. The attempt by some Western commentators to reframe this as a press freedom issue is not only disingenuous; it is an insult to genuine journalists everywhere who do their work without seeking to topple governments or invite foreign coercion.

The fact that the HKSAR’s judicial rulings continue to be cited by the courts of other common law jurisdictions further underscores the international legal community’s enduring confidence in the system. Hong Kong’s courts have long been respected for their independence and professionalism, staffed by judges trained in the common-law tradition and operating under procedures that mirror those of the world’s most advanced legal systems. That foundation has not changed. What has changed is that Hong Kong now possesses the legal tools to defend itself against those who would exploit its openness to endanger its security — just as every sovereign jurisdiction has the right and responsibility to do.

Hong Kong has undergone a profound transformation over the past five years — from chaos to order, from vulnerability to strength. The 20-year sentence handed down on Feb 9 is a milestone in the jurisdiction’s steady pursuit of lasting security and stability.

It reaffirms that national security and the rule of law are not opposing values, but complementary pillars. Those who genuinely care about Hong Kong’s prosperity should welcome a legal system that holds all individuals accountable, rather than one swayed by external political pressure.

The law has spoken. It is time for the world to listen.

The author is the convenor at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.