Seeking a reinterpretation had set a dangerous precedent, academics said.
Hong Kong University law faculty dean Albert Chen Hung-yee said the Government had 'failed to spell out under what circumstances it will exercise its power [to seek re-interpretation]. It has made a bad precedent.' Mr Chen, a Basic Law Committee member, suggested formalising a mechanism to avoid reinterpretation being abused.
'The Government can't go for reinterpretation simply on the grounds that the case is special and the social consequences are huge.' Assistant law professor at Hong Kong University Eric Cheung Tat-ming said the move set a worrying trend.
'Officials only treat the rule of law as a tool. Its concerns over social problems and other policies always come first,' Mr Cheung said.
'The Government had no justification to seek an re-interpretation other than the so-called unbearable consequences.' City University associate law professor Priscilla Leung Mei-fun said reinterpretation was lawful and acceptable. Worries over the rule of law were understandable because reinterpretation was unfamiliar to the common law system, she said.
Professor Leung called for broad public consultation and the establishment of a formal mechanism for reinterpretation.