Hong Kong’s appeals court has upheld the subversion convictions and prison terms of 12 pro-democracy figures linked to the city’s biggest national security case, affirming a landmark ruling that authorities say targeted an illegal plan to paralyze government through an unofficial primary election.
The three-judge panel on Monday dismissed the appeals brought by a dozen defendants from the “Hong Kong 47” case, including veteran politician “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former journalist Gwyneth Ho and Australian citizen Gordon Ng. Prosecutors’ bid to overturn one of the two acquittals in the wider case also failed, with the court maintaining that barrister Lawrence Lau’s alleged subversive intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Advertisement -
The decision centers on a 2020 pro-democracy primary that sought to coordinate candidates for Legislative Council elections and, if successful at the polls, use a budget veto to press the government to meet demands including universal suffrage. High Court Chief Judge Jeremy Poon, in earlier findings cited by the court, described the strategy as a “constitutional weapon of mass destruction” that was unlawful even without the use or threat of force.
Defense lawyers had argued the plan amounted to hardball politics permitted under Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, which allows lawmakers to vote down the budget as a check on the executive. During hearings last year, counsel Erik Shum said legislators should not face criminal liability for how they cast votes. In their ruling, the appeal judges wrote that coordination between the executive and legislature is “inevitable,” and while a budget veto is contemplated by the Basic Law, its proper use “must be extremely rare.”
The upholding of the convictions consolidates a sweeping application of the Beijing-imposed national security law, enacted in June 2020 after months of mass protests in 2019. Authorities arrested dozens of opposition figures in early 2021, drawing international criticism and reinforcing fears that the law—which covers secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces—has sharply curtailed political freedoms in the city.
In 2024, the court found 45 defendants guilty and acquitted two. Those convicted received sentences ranging from four years and two months to 10 years, depending on their roles and whether they pleaded guilty or received sentence reductions. As of last month, 18 defendants who did not contest their convictions had been released after serving their terms. Many have kept low profiles; several sat quietly in the public gallery on Monday and declined to comment.
Inside the courtroom, the 12 appellants smiled and waved to supporters after the judgment was read. Outside, reaction was swift from activists and rights groups. Chan Po-ying, a prominent pro-democracy figure and the wife of Mr. Leung, called the outcome “absurd” and accused the court of assuming subversive intent. Amnesty International Hong Kong Overseas spokesperson Fernando Cheung said the panel had “missed a critical opportunity to correct this mass injustice.”
The case has become a defining test of political participation under the national security framework. Supporters of the defendants say the 2020 primary reflected legitimate electoral mobilization, noting that a record number of voters took part. Authorities counter that the coordination plan crossed from political strategy into criminal conspiracy by seeking to inflict systemic paralysis on governance, breaching the city’s security law.
The appellants can seek to take their case to Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, though it was not immediately clear if they would pursue that route. For now, Monday’s decision cements the legal rationale underpinning the original verdicts and signals little room for organized opposition tactics that target the government’s budget as leverage.
The court’s refusal to disturb Mr. Lau’s acquittal underscored one narrow limit to the prosecution’s case, with judges saying trial findings left reasonable doubt about his intent. But for the core group of democracy advocates, the outcome keeps intact the most consequential set of convictions yet handed down under the security law—and a stark marker of how the city’s political landscape has been remade since 2019.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
