In a landmark ruling, the Hong Kong judiciary delivered a long-awaited verdict in the case involving 47 individuals accused of organizing and participating in an illegal “primary election” aimed at securing over 35 seats in the Legislative Council with the ultimate objective of subverting the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government.

The defendants, including Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong at the time of the “primary”, faced charges of “conspiracy to subvert State power” under the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL). Out of the 47 accused, 31 pleaded guilty before the trial commenced, while 16 chose to contest the charges. After a grueling 118-day trial, the court found 14 of the 16 defendants guilty, with only two acquitted.

This verdict is more than a legal outcome; it’s a testament to Hong Kong’s commitment to judicial independence and transparency. It underscores the principle that anyone attempting to disrupt society and undermine the State will face legal consequences. The trial has sent a clear message to the public: The rule of law is paramount, and legal repercussions are inevitable for those who aim to destabilize social order.

The trial of the illegal “35+ primary election” case was conducted with complete independence, professionalism, and neutrality, unaffected by external pressures. The verdict was delivered based on the spirit of the rule of law and impartial adjudication

This case stemmed from Tai’s 2020 proposal aimed at the Legislative Council election slated for Sept 6, 2020. Tai suggested a strategy to coordinate the anti-China camp to secure a majority in LegCo, referred to as the “35+ primary election”. The plan included indiscriminately vetoing the government’s budget twice, which would compel the chief executive to resign, thereby pressuring the HKSAR government to respond to the “five demands” of the black-clad rioters.

At first glance, vetoing the budget might seem like a legitimate exercise of legislative power. However, the court clarified that the proposed blanket rejection of the budget to force governmental concessions violates the Basic Law, which outlines the functions of LegCo and mandates lawmakers to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR. According to Article 52 of the Basic Law, if the budget is vetoed twice, the chief executive must resign. Tai’s strategy, which envisioned the chief executive’s resignation as a key step, was deemed by the court to be more than mere speculation, as argued by the defense.

Even though Article 51 of the Basic Law allows the chief executive to approve temporary funding based on the previous year’s budget if LegCo is dissolved, this scenario would severely hinder the government’s ability to implement new policies, essentially bringing governance to a standstill. Legislative privileges are not absolute, and paralyzing LegCo’s operations opens the door to both local and foreign interference, disrupting the HKSAR’s institutions and constituting an act of subversion.

The context of this case is further complicated by the backdrop of the anti-extradition-bill protests that started in mid-2019. What began as a political maneuver by anti-China politicians, under the influence of Tai and others, transformed into an attempt to subvert State power. The court’s verdict reflects the belief that those actions were not merely political dissent but efforts to undermine the government, warranting legal sanctions.

It’s important to note that laws against subversion are not unique to Hong Kong. The United States, for instance, has had the Sedition Act since 1918 and the Smith Act since 1940, which criminalize inciting or advocating the overthrow of the government by force or violence, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison.

This ruling also clarifies that nonviolent actions can be harmful. One key defense argument was about the interpretation of “other illegal means”, which the defense argued should be limited to actions involving force or threats of force. The court, however, stated that restricting “other illegal means” to physical force would be unreasonable and contrary to legislative intent. The judgment serves as a warning that attempts to disrupt social order through so-called “soft resistance” will also face legal repercussions.

The trial of the illegal “35+ primary election” case was conducted with complete independence, professionalism, and neutrality, unaffected by external pressures. The verdict was delivered based on the spirit of the rule of law and impartial adjudication. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice must remain vigilant, ensuring comprehensive preparations to uphold legal justice and help society move beyond the turmoil of the past.

The author is convener at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.