Lessons from the Jimmy Lai trial: Safeguarding rule of law under 'One Country, Two Systems'

Editor's note: Zhou Wenxing, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is an associate professor and PhD supervisor at the School of International Studies (SIS), Nanjing University. He writes extensively on comparative politics and international relations, with an emphasis on the Taiwan question and China-U.S. relations. Liu Haote is a research assistant at SIS. The article reflects the authors' opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

December 15 marked a significant milestone in the judicial practice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the national security law, as Jimmy Lai, widely regarded as a central figure behind the 2019 unrest, was convicted of conspiring to collude with external forces and incite subversion.

Lai's seditious activities did not emerge overnight. Spanning several decades, his conduct culminated in a trial that lasted 156 days and resulted in an 855-page verdict. The proceedings were conducted open hearings and received broad support across Hong Kong society, including from HKSAR Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong.

Despite this, certain external actors and institutions responded with unfounded accusations, attempting to undermine a lawful judicial process through diplomatic pressure and public opinion campaigns. These allegations are both misleading and untenable.

One prominent claim advanced by some Western media outlets portrayed Lai as a newspaper proprietor motivated by a commitment to press freedom. This narrative is decisively contradicted by the evidence presented in the verdict, which documents Lai's repeated calls for foreign sanctions against China and his explicit intent to "fight for America."

A substantial body of open-source evidence further demonstrates his ambition to destabilize Hong Kong and orchestrate political upheaval, most notably during the violent unrest of 2019, when he played a central role in radicalizing protesters and acting as an agent and vanguard for external anti-China forces. Such conduct posed a grave threat to national security.

Hong Kong is a society governed by the rule of law, where freedoms of the press and expression are protected under the Basic Law in the HKSAR and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. However, these freedoms are not absolute. They do not constitute a "lawless zone," nor may they be distorted into instruments for inciting social division, undermining public order, or facilitating foreign interference in local affairs.

A second false assertion characterizes Lai's trial as a "show trial." In reality, the proceedings were conducted openly, transparently, and strictly in accordance with legal procedures. The rights of both the prosecution and the defense were fully protected, and the judgment was based exclusively on facts and evidence presented in court. This case exemplifies the independent exercise of judicial power by Hong Kong's courts and underscores the territory's enduring commitment to the rule of law.

The judicial authorities of the HKSAR have duly fulfilled their constitutional responsibilities by upholding the authority of the law and safeguarding national security. These actions are lawful, reasonable, and fully justified. The case against Jimmy Lai bears no relation to press freedom or human rights. Attempts to sanitize his conduct or exert political pressure to interfere with judicial proceedings represent a direct affront to the rule of law itself.

Moreover, claims by certain Western media that Lai was denied adequate medical care or religious services while in custody were promptly refuted by the HKSAR Correctional Services Department (CSD). Clarifications from Lai's own legal representatives confirmed that the CSD's practices fully complied with applicable laws and regulations, ensuring the dignity and lawful rights of incarcerated individuals.

Taken as a whole, the judicial process adhered strictly to legal standards, procedural fairness, and transparency. It upheld the authority of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law in the country's HKSAR, while remaining immune to external political pressure or inflammatory public opinion. In doing so, it genuinely safeguarded judicial independence and reinforced the constitutional order of the HKSAR.

Most importantly, the Jimmy Lai case illustrates that Hong Kong's long-term peace and stability depend fundamentally on the effective and sustained implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. Before 2020, the absence of national security legislation created vulnerabilities that separatist elements and external forces exploited. The enactment and enforcement of the national security law have decisively closed these loopholes.

The Lai case thus stands as a paradigmatic example of how the national security law protects national unity while upholding the rule of law and procedural justice. It also highlights the institutional innovation of "One Country, Two Systems" as the most realistic and fundamental pathway to Hong Kong's long-term stability and prosperity. Only within this framework can the enduring well-being of the HKSAR, and the integrity of the nation as a whole, be reliably secured.