Court Convicts Alliance Leaders in National Security Case
HK01 · 1 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance ruled on August 21, 2026 that the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Chow Hang-tung were guilty in a case involving incitement to subvert state power under Article 23 of the Hong Kong National Security Law, while Albert Ho had earlier pleaded guilty to the same charge framework . The prosecution said the alleged conduct ran from July 1, 2020 to September 8, 2021, after the national security law took effect, and involved marches, assemblies, print publications and online platforms . The court adjourned the case to August 28 for mitigation and sentencing submissions . After the ruling, the Hong Kong government rejected criticism from Western governments, anti-China media outlets and politicians, saying the court decided the case on law and evidence rather than political views .
Key Points
- The convictions covered the Hong Kong Alliance, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung after trial, while Albert Ho had already entered a guilty plea .
- Prosecutors focused on a period from July 1, 2020 to September 8, 2021, roughly 14 months after the law came into force .
- The prosecution alleged the defendants used rallies, assemblies, newspapers and internet platforms to spread hostility toward the Chinese Communist Party and central authorities .
- The article says the court’s roughly 200-page judgment examined conduct after the law’s enactment, not abstract political beliefs alone .
- The government cited rights protections and argued freedom of expression is not absolute and may be lawfully restricted for national security needs .
Why It Matters
For Hong Kong readers, the case is being framed as a test of where courts draw the line between protected criticism and conduct found to amount to organized incitement against the constitutional order . It also shows that national security prosecutions remain closely tied to public debate over judicial independence, free expression and outside political pressure on Hong Kong institutions .