China’s constitution cannot be directly implemented in Hong Kong, Tiananmen vigil activist says in nat. security trial

2026-03-10 - 12:55

Tiananmen vigil activist Chow Hang-tung has argued that China’s constitution cannot be directly implemented in Hong Kong, saying that prosecutors have misunderstood the ambit of the top legal text. Chow Hang-tung. File photo: Candice Chau/HKFP. Chow, a barrister who led the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China before its disbandment in 2021, made submissions on Tuesday seeking an early acquittal from the national security allegation she faces. For decades, the Alliance organised candlelight vigils in Hong Kong commemorating the deadly 1989 Tiananmen crackdown in Beijing, where hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed as troops dispersed pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square. The case revolves around the Alliance’s key slogan calling for “an end to one-party rule” in China, which prosecutors allege amounts to a breach of the country’s constitution and incitement to subversion. The subversion offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail. The activist, representing herself in the national security trial, told the panel of three designated judges that while the Chinese constitution is part of Hong Kong’s legal system, it cannot be directly implemented in the city. She said the prosecution had adopted a broad reading of the constitution and had erred in alleging that she had directly breached it. The constitution “certainly is applicable to Hong Kong, but that does not mean it can be directly implemented as law,” she said in Cantonese. She called it a matter of “direct effect,” referring to a legal principle allowing a law to be directly enforced in a local jurisdiction. Hong Kong, which operates a common law system distinct from mainland China’s civil law, has its own mini-constitution, the Basic Law. Addressing Chow’s argument, prosecutor Ned Lai said that she was not on trial for breaching the constitution, but for violating the Beijing-imposed national security law. Breaching China’s constitution was the “unlawful means” she and Lee Cheuk-yan, another leader of the Alliance, had employed to allegedly incite subversion, Lai said. A third defendant, solicitor Albert Ho, pleaded guilty when the trial opened in January. Expert testimony Chow also argued on Tuesday that expert testimony would be needed to interpret the Chinese constitution as it was a point of “foreign law.” The Tiananmen vigil in Victoria Park on June 4, 2018. Photo: Kris Cheng/HKFP. Lai disagreed, saying that characterisation was “extremely inappropriate.” His remark prompted Judge Alex Lee to tell the prosecutor to “sit down” and say that he understood Chow to mean that the local courts are unfamiliar with the Chinese legal system. Chow clarified she was not making a political statement, but trying to say that the Chinese constitution operated as part of a jurisdiction separate from Hong Kong’s. The activist had initially applied to have Ho Ming-sho, a sociology professor at National Taiwan University, testify in her national security trial. However, the judges barred the scholar from testifying, deeming that his proposed evidence “irrelevant to the case.” Chow said that expert testimony was needed as the prosecution had not called an expert to interpret the Chinese constitution. All issues concerning the interpretation of the constitution “remain in a state where no evidence has been given,” she said. The court’s understanding of China’s constitution and its legal system must go beyond the text of the document, Chow argued. “The court must understand the logic behind the [Chinese] legal system, and we just don’t have that kind of knowledge.” In response, the prosecution maintained that no expert testimony was needed and that the court could rely on the text of the constitution itself and other related official documents if needed. On Monday, lawyer Erik Shum also sought an early acquittal for his client, Lee Cheuk-yan, arguing that prosecutors erred in saying that there are no “lawful means” to call for an end to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule. Shum also said that there was “never a call for action” for ending one-party rule.