Illustration: Xia Qing/GT

The conviction of Jimmy Lai on charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and publishing seditious materials under Hong Kong's National Security Law (NSL) is a landmark case with profound implications for both the application of the NSL and the safeguarding of China's national security. There are a number of comments that warrant clarification and rebuttal.

Some have said that this case undermined judicial independence as judges are subservient to the central government. However, this allegation is absurd. The Hong Kong judiciary operates under a robust legal framework that ensures the independence of judges and the integrity of legal proceedings. They are not appointed by the central government, and they have security of tenure. The trial was conducted in a fair and open manner. Lai has a team of robust counsel that represented him, many witnesses were cross examined and the 156-day trial was conducted in front of a panel of judges who adhered strictly to the rule of law. The proceedings were transparent, with all evidence meticulously examined and documented, reflecting a commitment to due process that is characteristic of a mature judicial system. The court's decision to convict Lai was grounded in legal reasoning, countering claims that the NSL is used arbitrarily or politically. This reinforces the message that the law applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their status or influence.

Lai's actions went beyond legitimate dissent and overstepped the boundary of freedom of speech. The court found that he used his media platform and foreign connections to advocate for sanctions against Hong Kong and China, actions which certainly endangered national security. Again, no individual, regardless of their status, is above the law.

The case is widely regarded as a landmark case and it is one of the most high-profile applications of the NSL since its enactment in 2020. The court's detailed examination of evidence, including Lai's meetings with foreign officials and his advocacy for sanctions against China, underscores the law's focus on protecting sovereignty and stability while adhering to legal principles. It establishes a clear judicial precedent for addressing acts that threaten national security, particularly those involving collusion with foreign forces. 

The case sends a strong signal that collusion with foreign forces to undermine China's sovereignty will not be tolerated. Lai's conviction highlights the risks of using Hong Kong as a platform for external forces to interfere in China's internal affairs. Lai was also convicted for conspiracy to publish seditious materials. The court found that articles published by Lai's Apple Daily were "objectively seditious," aiming to incite hatred, contempt or disaffection against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. These publications were deemed to encourage public disorder and undermine the legitimacy of the authorities. While Lai's defence argued that his publications were legitimate exercises of free speech, the court held that his actions crossed the line into sedition by actively undermining the government and promoting hostility. The judgment emphasized that Lai consciously used his media platform to promote a sustained campaign against the government, which extended beyond permissible free speech.

The NSL was introduced in response to the social unrest and violent protests of 2019, which posed significant challenges to Hong Kong's stability. Lai's role as a key figure in these events, including his use of media platforms to amplify anti-government sentiment and solicit foreign sanctions, was a direct threat to public order. His conviction marks a step toward restoring stability and reinforcing the principle that national security is a prerequisite for freedom and prosperity.

This case underscores China's determination to uphold its sovereignty over Hong Kong. By addressing actions that threaten national security through legal means, the government demonstrates its commitment to maintaining the "One Country, Two Systems" framework while ensuring that Hong Kong remains an integral part of China.

In conclusion, the case is a pivotal moment in the implementation of the NSL. It not only reinforces the legal framework for safeguarding national security but also reaffirms Hong Kong's role as a society governed by the rule of law. This case serves as a reminder that freedom and security must coexist, with the latter being essential for the former to thrive.

The author is Barrister and Chairman of the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn