How primary elections led to arrests of activists in Hong Kong's biggest national security case

HONG KONG (AP) — Verdicts in Hong Kong the biggest national security case to date, involving some of the city's best-known pro-democracy activists, will be handed down Thursday, more than three years after the defendants' arrest.

In 2021, 47 pro-democracy activists were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under the sweeping national security law imposed by Beijing for their involvement in a unofficial primary election. The massive lawsuits have crushed the city's once-thriving political activism and dimmed hopes for a more democratic Hong Kong.

Sixteen of the 47 defendants are expected to learn their fate Thursday and Friday and face life in prison if found guilty.

Critics say the law has has considerably eroded freedoms which are essential to maintaining the city's status as a global financial center. “This is a trial for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong,” said Eric Lai, a researcher at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law.

What you need to know about the safety file:

WHO ARE THE 47 ACTIVISTS?

Many of the city's most prominent democracy advocates are among the 47 activistswhose age ranges from 20 to 60 years.

It includes legal scholar Benny Tai, a dozen former pro-democracy lawmakers such as Claudia Mo and Alvin Yeung, and activists such as Joshua Wong and Lester Shum. Many of them have been held without bail for more than three years.

Sixteen of the defendants – including former lawmakers Leung Kwok-hung and Raymond Chan and journalist-turned-activist Gwyneth Ho – began their trial in February 2023 after pleading not guilty. The court scheduled two days of hearing to deliver their verdict.

Thirty-one others, including Tai, Mo, Yeung, Wong and Shum, pleaded guilty. They have a better chance of receiving shorter prison sentences and will be sentenced at a later date.

WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY ELECTION?

Taking advantage of a huge wave of anti-government protests in 2019, the pro-democracy camp was likely to achieve victories in the 2020 legislative elections. The primary was intended to pre-select pro-democracy candidates who would then run in the official elections.

The camp hoped to secure a majority in parliament to push protesters' demands, which included greater police accountability and democratic elections for city leaders.

In March 2020, Tai, one of the main organizers of the primaries, said that achieving a majority majority in the Legislative Assembly, usually dominated by the pro-Beijing camp, could be “a constitutional weapon with of great destructive power.

Before the elections, the government warned that the vote could violate the national security law. Despite this, the July 2020 pro-democracy primaries took place and attracted a surprisingly high turnout of 610,000 voters, or more than 13% of the city's registered electorate.

Beijing quickly criticized the vote, calling it a challenge to the national security law, and in January 2021, more than 50 activists were arrested under the law and 47 of them were subsequently charged.

HOW DID BOTH PARTIES ARGUMENT THEIR CASES?

Prosecutors alleged that the defendants agreed to indiscriminately veto government budgets to force the city's leader to dissolve the legislature and resign.

The prosecution said the aim of the alleged plot was to overthrow state power, pointing to how Tai described gaining a majority as a “constitutional weapon” and referred to newspaper reports that he wrote about “mutual destruction.” In one of the articles, Tai suggested that repeated blocking of government budgets could cripple government functions, they said.

Prosecutors said 33 of the activists approved a joint statement pledging to use their legislative powers, including vetoing budgets, to force the city's leader to meet protesters' demands.

Four of the defendants who pleaded guilty also testified for the prosecution.

The defense argued that “unlawful means” to subvert state power should involve physical coercion or criminal conduct. One of the attorneys, Randy Shek, said his clients were only seeking to push for democratic elections that let residents choose the city's leader and lawmakers. Shek said they relied on a constitutional mechanism to push for changes.

“What they did was simply seek to hold power to account, and that could not be subversion,” he said.

Prosecutor Jonathan Man argued that illegal means did not necessarily involve physical violence. He said that in the 21st century, when it is convenient to communicate with the public through social media, it is also easy to manipulate these channels “to endanger national security.”

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE VERDICT?

Experts say the verdict provides a litmus test for how the national security law will be used against political opponents and activist activities.

Since the law was enacted, the Hong Kong government has insisted that the city's judicial independence is protected. But Thomas Kellogg, executive director of the Asian Law Center at Georgetown University, said the verdict would show that the security law, and the law in general, is being used to suppress Hong Kong's political opposition.

“The rule of law in Hong Kong is simply not as strong as it once was, and I fear that legal protections will continue to deteriorate,” he said.

The verdict will likely also show whether nonviolent political participation — in this case, holding a public vote — is considered a crime against national security, said Lai, a researcher at the same center. He added that another key issue the court would rule on is the legislative council's veto power over the budget.

“It is important to see whether the court would characterize the exercise of constitutional power by the legislature,” he said.

AND AFTER?

After the verdict, the court is expected to schedule hearings for any convicted defendants to seek a more lenient sentence.

Then the judges, who have been approved by the government to oversee the case, will hand down the sentences of those convicted.

Kellogg said several of the top activists among the 47 defendants could face sentences of 10 years or more.

“Many of the 47 have missed the birthdays and graduations of their sons and daughters, and even the deaths of elderly family members. It is important not to overlook the very real costs involved here,” he said.