Editor's note: Zhou Wenxing, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is associate professor at the School of International Studies(SIS) and assistant dean of Huazhi Institute for Global Governance, 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.

On February 9, 2026, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) sentenced Jimmy Lai to 20 years' imprisonment for two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious materials. As the first major national security case involving collusion with external forces since the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL), the verdict has attracted widespread attention at home and abroad. Amid competing narratives and political rhetoric, it is essential to return to the fundamentals – the rule of law, judicial procedure and the factual record of the case itself.

From a legal perspective, the Lai judgment reflects the institutional professionalism of Hong Kong's courts. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with established judicial practice, with extensive evidence presented, tested and assessed under the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment, running more than 800 pages, was published in full, demonstrating the court's commitment to transparency and reasoned decision-making.

The court examined more than 2,000 pieces of evidence, tens of thousands of pages of documents, testimony from multiple prosecution witnesses, and detailed submissions from both the prosecution and the defense. The evidence addressed the defendant's intent, his actions and their consequences, forming a comprehensive evidentiary chain. The court's reasoning distinguished between legitimate journalistic activity and conduct that crossed into criminal collusion with foreign actors, underscoring a core principle of modern constitutional orders – fundamental rights are protected, but they are not absolute and must operate within the bounds of the law.

Procedurally, the case also reflected safeguards for the defendant's rights. Court sessions were conducted publicly, legal representation was provided, and the judgment's reasoning was made accessible for scrutiny. Such features are hallmarks of Hong Kong's common-law system, which emphasizes due process, reasoned judgments and appellate review. The case therefore illustrates continuity in judicial professionalism rather than a departure from it.

Beyond the legal process, the factual background of Lai's activities formed a central part of the court's findings. Over the years, Lai used his media platform and political connections to cultivate relationships with foreign officials and organizations.

Publicly available records show that he repeatedly called on foreign governments, particularly the United States, to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. In speeches and interviews abroad, he described his political struggle as aligned with that of foreign powers and urged them to apply economic and political pressure.

From an academic perspective, such conduct raises important questions about the boundary between political advocacy and external interference. In most jurisdictions, direct appeals to foreign governments for sanctions against one's own country would be politically controversial and, in certain contexts, legally problematic. 

While political expression is widely protected, coordinated efforts with external actors to influence domestic affairs can fall within the scope of national security legislation, depending on the applicable legal framework.

The court concluded that Lai's actions went beyond the expression of opinions or the operation of a newspaper. The judgment found that his activities involved organized efforts to solicit foreign sanctions and use media influence to shape international pressure campaigns. In the court's assessment, these actions satisfied the statutory elements of collusion with foreign forces under the NSL.

Some critics in Western countries characterized the case as a matter of press freedom or political expression. However, the court's reasoning emphasized that the charges were not based solely on the publication of critical opinions, but on coordinated actions with external actors aimed at influencing foreign governments to take punitive measures. The distinction between protected speech and criminal collusion formed a central pillar of the judgment.

At the same time, the case became a focal point for diplomatic commentary. Some foreign officials and organizations issued statements criticizing the prosecution and called for Lai's release. From a legal standpoint, such reactions also highlight the tension between political advocacy and the principle of non-interference in judicial processes. In most legal systems, courts are expected to decide cases based on evidence and law, rather than external political pressure.

Ultimately, the Lai case represents more than an individual criminal proceeding. It is a test of how Hong Kong's legal system applies national security legislation while maintaining its common-law traditions of due process and reasoned judgments. The extensively written decision, the detailed evidentiary record and the procedural safeguards afforded to the defendant all form part of this institutional framework.

For observers seeking to assess the case objectively, the essential question is not political alignment but legal reasoning. The judgment demonstrates how the court interpreted the NSL's provisions, evaluated evidence and articulated the limits of lawful conduct. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, the case provides a concrete example of how Hong Kong's courts continue to operate through formal procedures, detailed judgments and established legal standards.

In this sense, the Lai verdict underscores a broader principle – the credibility of any judicial system ultimately rests on transparent procedures, reasoned decisions and the consistent application of the law. The professionalism of Hong Kong's courts, as reflected in this case, must be evaluated on those legal foundations rather than on political narratives surrounding it.