According to a British judge who resigned on Monday from Hong Kong’s top appeals court last week, the rule of law in Hong Kong is seriously under fire in areas where the government holds strong opinions.
Jonathan Sumption was among two British judges who stepped down shortly following a landmark verdict that saw 14 pro-democracy activists convicted for subversion during the national security crackdown on dissent.
Long-held assumptions by some legal practitioners that having foreign jurists at the apex court safeguards city’s international image after China ratified national security law for Hong Kong in 2020 as reaction to mass protests by democrats are being challenged by some lawyers as inconsistent with recent resignations.
Sumption later explained why he had decided to quit, claiming that Hong Kong authorities were agonizing about political oppositions.
“Hong Kong used to have a vivacious and politically diverse society but it is gradually turning into a totalitarian state. In other words, any issue which matters so much to the government can never be handled within the confines of the rule of law,” Sumption wrote in an opinion piece published on FT.com.
Hong Kong leader John Lee rejected Sumption’s remarks and said judges were not qualified to speak on politics, while also accusing Britain and other countries of interfering with the city’s legal system.
Chinese and Hong Kong officials justify their actions by arguing that it has restored peace ever since they introduced a national security law.
According to Lee, “Some UK officials and politicians try to weaponise UK’s judicial influence to target China and HKSAR (Hong Kong).”
“That is not an area of professional expertise for judges although each judge has his own personal political preference.”
While certain departing foreign justices from supreme courts have expressed concerns about security legislation tightening up in Hong Kong, this is considered extreme position taken by them all compared with what Sumption just did.
They join numerous British jurists who have broken away from Hong Kong’s highest tribunal since mainland China enacted a national security law that clamped down on dissent some years ago.
Another judge at the court, Canada’s Beverley McLachlin, said on Monday she would not be seeking reappointment when her three-year term ends on July 29.
Since Hong Kong was handed back to China by Britain in 1997, the latter has argued that its new security law penalizing acts such as subverting the state with life imprisonment was curbing dissent and freedom.
Many democratic activists have been arrested, detained or forced into exile in Hong Kong over past months; civil society organizations have been closed while liberal media outlets have had to shut down.
Last month, 14 pro-democracy campaigners were found guilty and two were acquitted in a landmark trial for sedition which critics argue further eroded the city’s rule of law and reputation as an international financial centre.
The verdicts in Hong Kong’s largest trial against opposition democrats came more than three years since police arrested 47 democratic activists during early morning raids across the city.
As Sumption stated: “The real problem is that it is symptomatic of this growing malaise within the judiciary system in Hong Kong.”
