THERE will be unnecessary and damaging uncertainty about the eventual form of the Court of Final Appeal if the Sino-British agreement on the court is not supported, as the Bar Association recommends, the Government says.
In a broadside yesterday on the Bar Association statement, which called on Hong Kong people to reject the agreement, the Government said there would be a judicial vacuum in 1997 if the deal was vetoed by the Legislative Council.
'The Bar Association has failed to make clear the implications of the position it has taken,' the government statement said.
It said Hong Kong's interest was better served by passing the bill and setting up the Court of Final Appeal in 1997 with Sino-British co-operation, based on the established principles and practices of the Privy Council.
The Government also rebuked the Bar Association's comments that the definition of 'acts of state' in the bill had imposed unprecedented limitations on the powers of the courts.
According to the Government, the definition of 'acts of state' in the court bill only repeats the formulation of acts of state in Article 19 of the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of the territory after 1997.
'The [court] ordinance, which will come into operation on the same day, cannot override the Basic Law.' According to Article 19, the Court of Final Appeal shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state, such as defence and foreign affairs, and this would be the law of Hong Kong from July 1, 1997, whether the article was put in the court bill or not, the Government said.
