Editorial | US sanctions threat risks compromising judges’ independence

Western powers often resort to economic or political sanctions in response to foreign affairs or developments they disapprove of, which in turn prompts counter-sanctions from their rivals. The tit-for-tat actions only fuel tensions and mistrust and do nothing for resolving problems. A recent United States congressional report calling for sanctions against Hong Kong judges presiding over national security cases goes beyond that. Not only is it an interference of the city’s internal affairs, but also it may put political pressure on judicial officers and compromise judicial independence.

Last week, the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China claimed the national security law had created a separate legal system in which the Hong Kong and central governments had “unchecked control over the weakened judiciary”. It urged Washington to consider imposing sanctions on 29 judges who were hand-picked by the chief executive to preside over national security cases, saying their role had eroded the city’s rule of law and independent judiciary.

The calls have understandably prompted condemnation from Beijing. Describing the report as “shameless and despicable”, the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office said the move was further proof that the US was the “biggest saboteur” of Hong Kong’s rule of law and independent judiciary. It vowed to safeguard city judges in the execution of their duties, but stopped short of elaborating how.

Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, his predecessor Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and other Hong Kong officials have been hit by US sanctions for their roles in “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy” following the adoption of the national security law. Earlier, the commission also called for sanctions against the secretary for justice and 15 prosecutors. Lee and others have repeatedly stressed they will not be deterred.

Targeting judges amounts to intimidation. It goes against the fundamental principle for judicial officers to uphold the rule of law and administer justice without fear or favour, bias or prejudice. Article 85 of the Basic Law also stipulates that the courts shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference; and members of the judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions.

Hong Kong’s interest is best served by respecting its freedoms, rule of law and high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty. Instead of unwarranted attacks and interference, the judiciary should be allowed to prove itself that it remains a pillar of trust and impartiality in the administration of justice.