Two prominent Hong Kong activists who organised annual vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown were found guilty of inciting subversion under the city’s national security law. Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung face up to 10 years in prison, with sentencing scheduled for a later date.
A Hong Kong court delivered its verdict in a high-profile national security trial, convicting two leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. The three-judge panel found Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, guilty of inciting subversion of state power after a trial that concluded its closing statements on the 24th day, moving faster than its initially scheduled 75-day timeline.
Prosecutors argued during the proceedings that the defendants endanger(ed) national security in the name of human rights
through their decades of activism. Both defendants pleaded not guilty when the charges were brought in September 2021, and they have remained behind bars since that time.
The Trial and Prosecution Arguments Against the Tiananmen Vigil Organizers
The prosecution’s case centered on the core tenets and public messaging of the Alliance, which was founded in May 1989 to support student-led pro-democracy rallies in Beijing. For three decades, the group organised annual candlelight vigils in Victoria Park that drew tens of thousands of participants to mourn the victims of the military crackdown.
According to a press summary handed out to reporters by authorities, the two leaders “incited other persons to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting the state power”. Prosecutors told the court that the Alliance’s long-standing call for ending one-party rule
was intended to incite others to overthrow the leadership of China’s ruling Communist Party through unlawful means.
A third defendant in the case, 74-year-old former lawmaker Albert Ho, entered a guilty plea in January. The alliance itself was also found guilty by the court.
Defense Arguments and the Elimination of Public Vigils
Chow Hang-tung, a barrister who chose to represent herself during the proceedings, challenged the legal framework of the prosecution throughout the trial.
Public commemorations of the Tiananmen crackdown have been effectively halted since authorities banned these gatherings in 2020, initially citing COVID-19 policies before Beijing imposed the national security law later that year following massive anti-government protests in 2019.
Legal Scholar and International Reactions to the Verdict
Legal observers and international human rights organisations have closely tracked the proceedings as a critical test of judicial independence and free expression in the territory. Rights group Amnesty International stated that the case relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of subversion.
Michael Davis, a legal scholar, told reporters that the annual vigils had become a collective activity that symbolised Hong Kong's rich tradition of popular protests
. He compared the potential chilling effect of the ruling to other prominent national security cases in the city.
“Much as the Jimmy Lai case sent a message of severe repression to the media, this case will send a similar message to speakers who want to exercise their freedom of expression through the vehicle of popular protests.”
Michael Davis, legal scholar, via RTL
Eric Lai, a senior fellow with the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, noted that the charge of inciting subversion mirrors legal instruments utilized in mainland China against human rights defenders and intellectuals to criminalize dissent.
Upcoming Sentencing and Judicial Timeline
With the three-judge panel having delivered its conviction on Friday morning, Lee and Chow now face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The court has not yet announced the date for the sentencing hearing, though legal proceedings for Albert Ho’s lighter sentence plea and the formal finalisation of penalties for the convicted organisers remain pending.
