The file photo taken on June 29, 2020 shows a billboard promoting the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HKSAR in the Central District of Hong Kong. WANG SHEN XINHUA John Lee Ka-chiu, chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said on Monday he would seek the National People's Congress Standing Committee's interpretation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong after the SAR's top court, the Court of Final Appeal, upheld an earlier High Court decision to allow a British barrister to defend jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying against charges under this law.
The SAR government must seek rectification because of the high odds that the effective enforcement of the law can be compromised by the involvement of overseas legal practitioners in cases involving offenses harming national security.
There is no effective mechanism to prevent or stop foreign defense counsels from leaking potential State secrets involved in national security cases once they leave the city, unlike with local legal practitioners.
This is contrary to the purpose of Article 63 of the NSL, which stipulates that anyone who handles cases involving alleged offenses endangering national security must keep confidential State secrets, which they learn about in the process of handling such cases, the disclosure of which could endanger the full, accurate, and effective enforcement of the NSL.
ALSO READ: CE to request NPCSC to interpret National Security Law
As with the five interpretations of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the potential first interpretation of the NSL by China's top legislative body will correct any misunderstanding of the law, and its effective implementation is guaranteed.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu attends a press conference at Central Government Offices in Hong Kong on November 28, 2022. The court ruling that admits an overseas defense lawyer for Lai stressed the contribution overseas counsel could make in developing local jurisprudence, and the need to take public perception of fairness into account. The British barrister concerned, or any other overseas counsel to be recruited for other national security cases, has no experience in the NSL or advantage over local barristers. Their involvement is in violation of the principle governing the ad hoc admission of foreign counsels: that expertise is not available locally, or that no suitable local counsel is available for handling the case.
It is unusual to think that the involvement of foreign barristers will boost public perception of fairness, given the fact that Hong Kong ranked high, at 22 nd out of 140 countries and jurisdictions worldwide, in the 2022 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, ahead of many Western democracies.
READ MORE: HK's top court allows British barrister to defend Lai.
The suggestion that public perception is superior to the need to ensure the effective enforcement of the NSL, and thus the effective protection of national sovereignty, security and development interests, defies logic.