In a landmark case that has sparked global outrage, forty-five pro-democracy activists and former lawmakers in Hong Kong were sentenced to prison on Tuesday for their involvement in what is now considered one of the most significant national security cases under the law imposed by Beijing. These sentences—ranging from four to ten years—are the culmination of Hong Kong's rapid shift away from its once-vibrant pro-democracy movement, largely due to the 2020 national security law that has effectively suppressed dissent and political freedoms.
At the heart of the prosecution was the role these individuals played in organizing an unofficial primary election in 2020, which was designed to give pro-democracy candidates a chance to gain control of the Hong Kong legislature. The government's stance was clear: these individuals were attempting to paralyze the government and force its resignation by gaining enough legislative power to block government budgets and disrupt the system. This move was seen as a direct challenge to the authority of Hong Kong’s leadership and Beijing’s tightening control over the region.
The unofficial primary, which took place in July 2020, drew a record-breaking 610,000 voters—more than a quarter of Hong Kong’s eligible voters at the time. It was anticipated that the winners of this primary would proceed to the official legislative election later that year. However, the Hong Kong government postponed that election, citing the risks posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. This delay, however, did not quell the ambitions of those behind the primary, who were determined to challenge the political status quo.
Among the accused was Benny Tai, a legal scholar whom the court described as the mastermind behind the plan. Tai, whose actions were seen as pivotal in organizing the primary, received the longest sentence: 10 years in prison. The judges pointed out that although some of the defendants claimed they did not realize the scheme was illegal, Tai's role in advocating for the revolution—through articles published over several months—was significant enough to warrant a harsh penalty. Even though Tai argued that the actions he advocated for were not meant as blueprints for political upheaval, the court was unconvinced, stressing that his words and actions set the stage for subversion.
Former lawmaker Alvin Yeung was also among those who received lengthy sentences. The court made it clear that both Tai and Yeung, as lawyers, were fully aware of the legal implications of their actions and had been relentless in pushing for the primary election despite its potential to destabilize the government. The judges further stated that while some defendants’ sentences were mitigated due to their lack of awareness of the unlawful nature of the scheme, there was no such leniency for Tai and Yeung.
Of the 47 defendants initially charged, two were acquitted earlier this year. The remaining individuals either pleaded guilty or were convicted of conspiracy to commit subversion. According to the court’s ruling, the activists’ plans to push forward with the unofficial primary election would have undermined the authority of the Hong Kong government, triggering a constitutional crisis. The court emphasized that all involved parties had invested considerable time, money, and effort into ensuring the success of the primary. Even the organizers themselves, the judges argued, had no illusions about the significance of their actions—they were intent on using the election to challenge the existing power structure.
The judgment painted a stark picture: the primary election was not a harmless exercise. It was, in the court’s eyes, an organized attempt to bring down a government through political means, and the fact that it succeeded in mobilizing so many citizens—an impressive number, considering the circumstances—only heightened the perceived threat. Despite claims from some defendants that the plan was always a long shot and would not have worked in practice, the court maintained that their efforts were tangible and far from theoretical.
This ruling did not come without emotional outbursts from both the defendants and their families. Some, like Gwyneth Ho, a journalist-turned-activist, used social media to express defiance against the regime. Ho, sentenced to seven years in prison, took to Facebook to state that their true crime was daring to challenge a regime that manipulates elections. She criticized the government’s crackdown, noting that their only “crime” was questioning whether democracy could ever thrive under such a regime.
The impact of the sentences on the families of the defendants was evident. Chan Po-ying, the wife of defendant Leung Kwok-hung, expressed anger and frustration, calling the imprisonment “unjust” and insisting that her husband, sentenced to six years and nine months, should not be behind bars for even a single day. Similarly, Emilia Wong, the girlfriend of Ventus Lau, acknowledged that while the sentencing was expected, it marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for democracy in Hong Kong.
On the other hand, some supporters of the activists, like Philip Bowring, the husband of pro-democracy legislator Claudia Mo, expressed relief that the long-awaited sentences were finally issued. However, the broader sentiment in Hong Kong and around the world was one of deep concern over the growing suppression of political freedoms.
The case serves as a striking illustration of how Beijing’s crackdown on pro-democracy forces has intensified since the massive protests of 2019. In the wake of those protests, Hong Kong has seen an erosion of civil liberties, a reduction in media freedom, and a growing control over public discourse. The national security law, intended to restore stability, has instead been used as a tool for quashing opposition and silencing dissent, critics argue.
From a legal standpoint, the Hong Kong government and Beijing insist that the national security law was necessary to ensure the city’s stability and protect it from foreign influence. In their view, the defendants were engaging in unlawful activities under the guise of democratic participation, threatening the very fabric of Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chinese officials, including Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian, have made it clear that no one is above the law, and democracy should not be used as a shield for unlawful activities.
Yet, this reasoning has been sharply criticized by human rights organizations and governments worldwide. The United States, through its Consulate in Hong Kong, condemned the sentences, stating that the defendants were merely participating in peaceful political activities protected under Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The U.S. also called for the immediate release of the activists, who have been jailed for over three years while awaiting trial. The United Nations and other international bodies have similarly expressed concern, emphasizing that the case underscores a worrying trend in Hong Kong’s deteriorating human rights landscape.
The trial has also caught the attention of ordinary citizens, some of whom waited in long lines outside the court for a chance to witness the proceedings firsthand. More than 200 people braved rain and wind to show solidarity with the defendants, including Lee Yue-shun, one of the acquitted individuals. Lee spoke about the importance of public awareness in the case, stressing that how society interprets the actions of these activists will have long-lasting consequences for Hong Kong’s future.
The saga of these 45 activists and former lawmakers is far from over. Their convictions are likely to become a rallying point for further opposition to Beijing's tightening grip over Hong Kong, with their supporters pledging to continue the fight for democracy, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. The international community, meanwhile, watches closely as Hong Kong continues its transformation from an autonomous region with guaranteed freedoms to a city under Beijing's strict control.
The sentences imposed on these pro-democracy figures are a stark reminder of the price many are willing to pay in their quest for political change. Whether or not these efforts succeed in the long term remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: Hong Kong’s battle for its political future is far from finished.
Login