By Chinonyerem Emmanuel

Hong Kong’s High Court on Thursday opened a closely watched national security trial against three former leaders of a now-disbanded civic group that for decades organised the city’s annual candlelight vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The case is widely seen as a defining moment for free expression in the Chinese-ruled financial hub and a test of whether public remembrance of June 4 still has a place in Hong Kong’s civic life.

For years, the vigils stood as a powerful symbol of the freedoms that once distinguished Hong Kong from mainland China, where the events of June 4, 1989  when Chinese troops used force to suppress student-led pro-democracy protests  remain taboo and unmentionable in public discourse.

Tens of thousands used to gather each year in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park to remember the victims.

That tradition came to an abrupt halt after the imposition of a sweeping national security law in 2020, under which authorities have since cracked down on dissent and banned the commemorations.

The defendants — Lee Cheuk-yan, 68, Albert Ho, 74, and Chow Hang-tung, 40 — were senior figures in the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the group behind the vigils.

Prosecutors have charged them with “inciting subversion of state power,” an offence that carries potential prison sentences of up to 10 years.

Chow and Lee have pleaded not guilty, while Ho, a former chairman of Hong Kong’s once-largest opposition Democratic Party, has entered a guilty plea.

The opening of the trial drew heightened security, with dozens of police officers stationed around the court complex.

Supporters gathered outside despite cold weather, underscoring the lingering emotional weight of the case.

Among them was former alliance member Tang Ngok-kwan, who said the proceedings would ultimately be judged by history rather than the courtroom. “Justice resides in the hearts of the people, and history will bear witness,” he said.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case is the Alliance’s long-standing slogan calling for an “end to one-party rule” in China.

Prosecutors argued this objective amounted to encouraging acts aimed at undermining the authority of the Chinese Communist Party and, by extension, subverting state power.

They said the group’s activities  including speeches, slogans at candlelight vigils, and the operation of a June 4 museum — were part of a broader effort to challenge China’s constitutional order.

Albert Ho’s guilty plea followed prosecutors’ assertion that there is no lawful mechanism under China’s constitution to end Communist Party rule, making such advocacy inherently illegal.

The court was told that Ho’s public remarks and the Alliance’s commemorative activities crossed the line from political expression into criminal conduct under the national security law.

Chow Hang-tung, a Cambridge-educated barrister and the former vice chair of the group, has been held in custody since September 2021 after being repeatedly denied bail. She has spent more than four years on remand, making her one of the longest-detained pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong.

On Thursday, she was permitted to represent herself in court, stepping out of the dock to address the judge and briefly thank supporters for turning out. In previous remarks, she has insisted that while authorities can imprison people, they cannot erase truth or control thought.

Human rights organisations and several foreign governments have criticised the case, arguing it exemplifies how the national security law is being used to silence peaceful dissent and rewrite historical memory.

Amnesty International described the prosecution as an attempt to punish those who refuse to forget the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown, rather than a legitimate national security matter.

Hong Kong and Beijing officials have rejected such criticism, maintaining that the law was necessary to restore stability after months of sometimes violent anti-government protests in 2019.

They argue that the judiciary remains independent and that the legislation targets only a narrow category of actions threatening national security.

The outcome of the trial could have far-reaching implications. Legal experts say a conviction would further narrow the space for political expression in Hong Kong and effectively criminalise public advocacy for democratic change in China.

As proceedings continue, the case is expected to serve as a bellwether for how far Hong Kong’s courts will go in enforcing the national security framework  and how much room, if any, remains for the city’s once-vibrant culture of protest and remembrance.

Source Reuters