Hong Kong in the grip of a power struggle over oath-taking saga
It remains to be seen if the city enjoys separation of powers in the Western sense, or whether Basic Law reigns supreme
In the end, a much-anticipated hearing to determine the fate of two pro-independence localists in trouble over their oath-taking lasted no more than 10 minutes.
The pair, who were disqualified as lawmakers by a High Court ruling on Tuesday, earned a small reprieve yesterday when the Court of Appeal said their seats would not be declared vacant yet. This status would be pending their appeal against the disbarment. Their case for this will be heard next Thursday.
Thus far, both yesterday and at the first hearing to defend their stance, a centrepiece of the argument by Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hung and Yau Wai-ching is that the courts have no right to decide their fate. The courts, they said, should not interfere in what is an internal Legislative Council matter.
They argued that the judiciary had overstepped its role and breached the separation of powers principle, or, as the pair’s lawyers put it, “ignored the non-intervention principle” between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government.
Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung certainly did not agree with the argument, as he explained in his 56-page ruling that he was “of the clear view that the non-intervention principle as applied in Hong Kong does not cover the matters under ... these proceedings”.