Opinion | Hong Kong does not need separation of powers to maintain judicial independence

Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Geoffrey Ma Tao-li recently issued an 18-page statement, widely seen as a response to the pro-establishment camp’s criticism of the judiciary because of recent rulings in cases related to the social unrest.

While Ma explained how the Basic Law safeguards judicial independence, he did not use the opportunity to directly comment – or wisely avoided it – on the recent controversy over whether “separation of powers” exists in Hong Kong. More importantly and unfortunately, Ma also failed to answer the question raised by the retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton in his column in the Post: for Hong Kong’s sake, how can the judiciary regain Beijing’s trust?

After the deletion of the expression “separation of powers” from secondary school liberal studies textbooks, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor insisted that separation of powers did not exist in Hong Kong, the first time the Hong Kong government has expressly denied the principle applies to the city.

The Bar Association responded with a public statement contending that the Basic Law provides for it. Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, a practising barrister who represents the legal functional constituency in the Legislative Council, said separation of powers was a fundamental constitutional principle in the common law system and that denying that it exists was disrespectful to the Hong Kong judiciary.