Hong Kong Court Bars Taiwanese Scholar From Tiananmen Vigil Trial

Hong Kong Court Bars Taiwanese Scholar From Tiananmen Vigil Trial

Apple Daily Images ()

Judges rule expert witness cannot testify because of past criticism of the Chinese Communist Party — a decision condemned as political interference in justice

Justice Denied: A Trial That Cannot Hear the Truth

A Hong Kong court has refused to allow a Taiwanese academic to testify as an expert witness in the ongoing national security trial of former Tiananmen vigil organisers, ruling that the scholar’s past public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party makes him unsuitable to testify. The ruling, in the trial of former Hong Kong Alliance leaders Chow Hang-tung, Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, adds to a growing body of evidence that Hong Kong’s national security courts are structurally incapable of delivering independent justice in politically sensitive cases. The Taiwanese scholar had been called to provide expert testimony on the historical and political context of the Alliance’s activities, which centred on the annual June 4 candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. The vigil, which ran from 1990 to 2020, was the only large-scale public commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre permitted on Chinese soil.

The Trial and Its Context

The three defendants — Chow, Lee and Ho — are charged with inciting subversion of state power under Beijing’s National Security Law. The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison. Chow and Lee have pleaded not guilty. Ho has pleaded guilty. The trial is expected to last 75 working days. Chow, a Cambridge-educated barrister who has been in detention since 2021, is representing herself in court and has mounted a vigorous challenge to the legal basis of the charges. The case follows the December 2025 conviction and February 2026 sentencing of media tycoon Jimmy Lai, which drew international condemnation.

The Exclusion of Overseas Witnesses

This is not the first time Hong Kong courts have limited the defence’s ability to call witnesses in national security cases. An amendment to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance prohibits remote testimony in national security trials, effectively barring all overseas witnesses from testifying even by video link. Human rights organisations have condemned this restriction as a fundamental violation of fair trial rights. The authorities have said the restriction applies equally to prosecution and defence, but critics note that the prosecution has the full resources of the state and does not rely on overseas witnesses in the way defendants in politically sensitive cases typically must.

Amnesty, the UN and the World Are Watching

Amnesty International’s Sarah Brooks has stated clearly that this case is not about national security — it is about rewriting history and punishing those who refuse to forget the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has classified Chow Hang-tung’s detention as arbitrary. Amnesty International’s full assessment of this trial is a devastating indictment of what has become of Hong Kong’s justice system. The Human Rights Watch has called for the immediate release of all three defendants and the dropping of all charges. For a city that was once celebrated for its independent judiciary, this trial represents a profound and painful fall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *