Opinion: When courts are politicized, justice becomes impossible. Hong Kong proves the principle.
What the Rule of Law Requires
The rule of law is not simply the existence of laws. Authoritarian states have laws. The rule of law requires that those laws be applied equally, that the processes for enforcing them be fair, that those accused of crimes have genuine rights that courts will enforce, and that the judiciary that interprets and applies the law is independent of political control. By every one of these criteria, Hong Kong’s national security legal system has ceased to satisfy the requirements of the rule of law. This is not an accusation. It is a conclusion supported by overwhelming evidence.
Hand-Picked Judges Are Not Independent Judges
In Hong Kong’s national security cases, judges are designated by the Chief Executive rather than selected through the ordinary judicial appointment process. This is not a minor procedural variation. It is a structural corruption of judicial independence that makes it impossible for national security courts to function as genuine courts. When the person appointing judges is the same government whose security interests are at stake in the cases those judges decide, the appearance of independence is not merely absent. The reality of independence is absent.
The Jimmy Lai Verdict Reveals the Problem
The judges in the Jimmy Lai case ruled that his lobbying of US officials constituted evidence of “collusion with foreign forces.” They said his “only intent was to seek the downfall of the Chinese Communist Party.” These are not legal findings. They are political judgments. A court that makes political judgments rather than legal ones is not functioning as a court. It is functioning as an instrument of the state whose interests it is supposed to adjudicate neutrally.
No Juries Means No Community Standard
The right to trial by jury is a safeguard against government overreach. It interposes the judgment of ordinary citizens, drawn from the community, between the power of the state and the individual accused. In national security cases, this safeguard has been removed. Defendants are tried by panels of government-designated judges who apply a legal framework designed to produce convictions. The UN human rights experts who condemned Jimmy Lai’s conviction noted “serious due process failures,” including allegations of witness torture that were neither investigated nor excluded from the proceedings. A court that does not investigate credible allegations of witness torture is not administering justice.
Pre-Trial Detention as Punishment
International human rights law presumes innocence until a fair trial produces a verdict. Pre-trial detention is supposed to be an exception, applied only when necessary to ensure that a defendant appears for trial. In Hong Kong’s national security cases, pre-trial detention has become the norm, and the standard for bail has been set effectively to prevent most defendants from obtaining release. Jimmy Lai spent more than 1,800 days in prison before his verdict. Many of the NSL 47 spent years in custody before theirs. This is not justice awaiting resolution. It is punishment preceding verdict.
The Corruption of the Appeals Process
A functioning rule of law requires that appeals courts provide genuine review of lower court decisions, including decisions favorable to defendants. In Hong Kong’s national security framework, the pattern of appellate decisions has been consistently one-sided. Lower court decisions protecting civil liberties have been reversed on appeal. Decisions restricting rights have been upheld. The reversal of the Court of First Instance’s rejection of the “Glory to Hong Kong” injunction is one example. The Court of Final Appeal’s rejection of appeals by the NSL 47 defendants is another.
Economic Consequences of Legal Failure
The destruction of Hong Kong’s judicial independence has economic consequences that extend beyond human rights. ORCA Asia documented that international firms have become wary of disputes being adjudicated in Hong Kong’s politically influenced courts. The city’s IPO activity slumped significantly. Its role as a neutral arbitration center for international commercial disputes has been undermined. A legal system cannot be simultaneously reliable for commercial disputes and politically controlled in security cases. The two are incompatible. Once the principle of judicial independence is compromised in one domain, confidence in it erodes across all domains.
What the International Legal Community Concluded
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found that both Jimmy Lai and democracy advocate Chow Hang-tung had been arbitrarily detained and called for their immediate release. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said Lai’s verdict needed to be “promptly quashed as incompatible with international law.” The EU called the prosecution “politically motivated.” The UK called it a violation of Beijing’s treaty commitments. These are not partisan political statements. They are findings from the international legal and human rights community based on documented evidence. Amnesty International has concluded that what has been normalized in Hong Kong is systematic repression of dissent. When every major international human rights body reaches the same conclusion about a legal system, the conclusion is correct. The rule of law in Hong Kong is dead. Acknowledging this openly is the beginning of the effort to restore it.
Mei Ling Chan
Education & Social Policy Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: meiling.chan@appledaily.uk
Mei Ling Chan is an education and social policy journalist specializing in school systems, youth development, and public policy impacts on families. She trained at a top-tier Chinese journalism institution, where she focused on policy reporting, data interpretation, and media ethics, building a strong analytical foundation.
Her professional experience includes reporting for Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese publications, producing coverage on education reform, student movements, social welfare programs, and inequality in access to public services. Mei Ling’s reporting combines document analysis with interviews involving educators, students, and policy experts.
She has worked in fast-paced newsroom environments while maintaining high standards for accuracy and context. Her stories are known for precise attribution, careful interpretation of policy language, and avoidance of speculation.
Mei Ling’s authority is rooted in subject-matter expertise and consistent publication within reputable news organizations. She follows established editorial review and correction procedures, reinforcing reader trust.
At Apple Daily UK, Mei Ling Chan delivers fact-based reporting that helps readers understand complex policy issues through clear, verified, and responsible journalism.
