Hong Kong jails 45 pro-democracy activists after largest national security trial
Prominent activists Benny Tai and Joshua Wong receive 10 years and four years respectively
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Hong Kong’s High Court on Tuesday sentenced 45 pro-democracy activists to jail terms of up to 10 years in a landmark national security trial seen as a stark demonstration of Beijing’s tightening grip on the city.
The trial stemmed from an unofficial “primary election” in July 2020 where the activists aimed to pick the best candidates for an upcoming legislative election.
The activists, commonly known as Hong Kong 47, were accused of plotting to paralyse the government by engaging in potentially disruptive acts.
Benny Tai, a legal scholar who was regarded as a key figure in the plan, received the longest sentence of 10 years while prominent activist Joshua Wong was given four years and two months.
Two of the 47 activists originally charged were acquitted.
Prosecutors argued the strategy of the activists to use legislative power to block government budgets was an attempt to paralyse the administration and force the city’s leader to step down.
The judges ruled that the plan to effect change through the “primary election” would have undermined government authority and created a constitutional crisis.
Tai, who had written an article outlining “ten steps to mutual destruction”, was widely seen as the organiser behind the “primary”.
In their verdict, the judges wrote that Tai essentially “advocated for a revolution” by publishing a series of articles over a period of months that traced his thinking, even though in his mitigation letter he said the steps were “never intended to be used as blueprint for any political action”.
Some defendants had claimed the scheme to secure a majority of seats in the legislature would never have materialised, but the judges rejected this reasoning, stating that “all the participants had put in every endeavor to make it a success”.
They noted that a great deal of time, resources and money was put into the organisation of the primary election, and rejected the idea that it had been “doomed to fail”.
“When the primary election took place on 10 and 11 July, no one had remotely mentioned the fact that primary election was no more than an academic exercise and that the scheme was absolutely unattainable,” they wrote.
“In order to succeed, the organisers and participants might have hurdles to overcome, that however was expected in every subversion case where efforts were made to overthrow or paralyse a government.”
The judges said the sentences had been reduced for defendants who said they were unaware the plan to secure a majority in the legislature and stall governance was unlawful.
The penalties were not reduced for Mr Tai and Alvin Yeung because, despite being lawyers, they were “absolutely adamant in pushing for the implementation of the scheme”.
The case was emblematic of the suppression of civil liberties in Hong Kong following the 2019 anti-government protests, political observers said.
It also reflected how Beijing’s promise to retain the former British colony’s liberties for 50 years when it was returned to China in 1997 had increasingly become threadbare, they said.
The US previously criticised the trial as "politically motivated" and said the activists should be released because they had been "peacefully participating in political activities" that were legal.
Incoming president Donald Trump’s secretary of state nominee, Marco Rubio, earlier denounced the trial and conviction of the 47 activists in an open letter as evidence of the national security law’s “comprehensive assault on Hong Kong’s autonomy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms”.
The Chinese and Hong Kong governments have said the national security laws were necessary to restore order after the mass protests of 2019. They have also maintained that the now-imprisoned activists were being treated in accordance with the local laws.
Some 200 supporters of the activists gathered outside the court despite rain and winds on Tuesday morning, showing solidarity. Among them was “Grandpa Wong”, a centenarian who worried that he might not live to see the activists freed.
Wei Siu-lik, a friend of convicted activist Clarisse Yeung, arrived at 4am despite an injury. “I wanted them to know we’re still here for them,” she said.
While some of the activists apologised and expressed remorse in court, seeking reduced sentences, others remained defiant. The lawyers for Mr Tai and some of his co-defendants argued that they believed their actions were lawful at the time.
Sentences under the national security law are linked to the severity of the offence, ranging from under three years for the least serious to 10 years to life for “grave” offences. The defendants who plead guilty stand a better chance of reduced penalties.
Additional reporting by agencies.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments