The Government should explain the controversial abode judgment to Beijing to avoid a possible constitutional crisis, a Basic Law Committee member said yesterday. Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, dean of the law faculty at the University of Hong Kong, said there were three points that needed to be clarified: That the court was not challenging the authority of the National People's Congress; That the statement that Hong Kong courts could interfere with NPC acts if they breached the Basic Law described a hypothetical situation unlikely to arise; If it did arise - the court could alter its position as the statement was not binding. Professor Chen said that the statement was only an obiter dictum. 'That means it did not lead to the ruling. It was just an incidental remark without any binding effect,' Professor Chen said. The remark was not of particular significance because lawyers representing both parties did not argue it. Professor Chen said the ruling dealt with five issues, none of which touched on the interpretation of the acts of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The Standing Committee could add national laws applicable to Hong Kong to Annex Three of the Basic Law, according to Article 18. Also, Article 158 says the power of interpretation of the Basic Law is vested in the Standing Committee. It was possible for the court to adjust its position as it might have different interpretations in future cases. 'If it is not clarified, there may be a constitutional crisis as central Government may take some action,' he said. That could include the Standing Committee passing a decision to limit Hong Kong courts' jurisdiction. 'It would be a blow to the authority of the court, but it would not lead to a collapse of the system,' he said. Professor Chen said the fears of mainland experts could be understood. 'However, there is no need for them to worry because the Standing Committee has a final say in the interpretation of the Basic Law.'