Thread by @kevinkfyam

The NPCSC interpretation goes well beyond just the relatively narrow (but already worrying) issue of whether foreign lawyers can represent parties in #HongKong NatSec cases. A THREAD. (1/8)

https://twitter.com/alvinllum/status/1608785563376816130

A1. In any #HongKong NatSec litigation, the court must now get a certificate from the Chief Executive on whether any act or piece of evidence involves NatSec and what to do in relation to the same. And if the court does not ask CE, then NatSec Commission can intervene. (2/8)

A2. What this means is that both the #HongKong CE and the NatSec Commission can now intervene and override the HK court at any time, and their decisions and acts would not be subject to any judicial review or any other form of legal challenge or oversight. (3/8)

B1. But it gets worse. Given that #HongKong NatSec Commission has plenary, unchecked powers to decide what is or isn’t NatSec, and make decisions in relation to the same, such powers can go beyond NatSec litigation or any litigation. It can touch on any policy area. (4/8)

B2. If #HongKong NatSec Commission decides that any policy or laws involving regulation of lawyers, pandemic prevention, education, financial regulation, or anything else involves NatSec, it can take action as it pleases with no judicial, legislative or executive oversight. (5/8)

C. As such, this NPCSC interpretation does not merely destroy the authority of #HongKong courts, but it destroys the entire integrity of the HK legal system, effectively allowing the Chief Executive (in litigation) and NatSec Commission (generally) to rule by decree. (6/8)

D. I already harboured doubts about whether #HongKong could achieve the #Singapore bifurcation of weak rule of law on political cases but strong rule of law on commercial cases even before this NPCSC interpretation. Now I can’t see how HK could ever get to such a point. (7/8)

E. Now I await the gutless responses from the #HongKong Law Society and the HK Bar Association. (8/8)