Hong Kong national security law: suspects with frozen assets have right to ‘challenge’ action in courts, justice minister Paul Lam insists
- Secretary for Justice Paul Lam on Tuesday assures legal forum that stability is key to superior business environment in city
- His remarks come a day after American Bar Association voiced strong opposition to legislation and urged withdrawal of bounty for eight wanted activists
Individuals who have had their assets frozen over alleged involvement in national security offences have the right to “challenge” such actions in Hong Kong’s courts, the city’s justice minister has said.
Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok on Tuesday sought to reassure stakeholders that stability was key to a superior business environment in the financial hub, as he defended the Beijing-imposed legislation at a legal forum.
Lam on Tuesday said the key to maintaining Hong Kong’s “superior” business environment hinged on upholding national security and stability, as he sought to reassure businesses their assets would be protected provided they observed the city’s laws.
“The law outlines strict substantial and procedural requirements for the freezing and restriction of assets related to crimes that endanger national security,” Lam argued.
“Affected individuals have the right to challenge the actions of judicial authorities in court, and their rights are protected by law.”
Hong Kong national security police raid family home of fugitive Nathan Law
He insisted that the Beijing-imposed legislation only targeted “a small number of individuals” who posed a threat to national security.
The security law, enacted three years ago in the aftermath of the 2019 anti-government unrest, prohibits acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Article 43 of the law empowers city authorities to “freeze, restrain, confiscate and forfeit property” relating to crimes endangering national security.
Hong Kong police’s National Security Department has since frozen assets belonging to several suspects. Assets worth nearly HK$500 million (US$64 million) from jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying are among those frozen, as well as HK$61 million from the now-closed Stand News and HK$2.2 million belonging to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China – the group behind the city’s annual vigil to mark the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
Tuesday’s legal forum, organised by the Hong Kong Policy Research Institute, centred on the theme of Hong Kong’s rule of law and business environment.
“Faced with the challenges of international politics and the economy, Hong Kong must consciously uphold national security and the rule of law to provide a stable and secure business and investment environment for the city and the country,” Lee said.
Beijing envoy protests against British criticism of Hong Kong security law raid
While noting the government’s full support for the judiciary in exercising its adjudicative power in accordance with the law, Lee vowed to promote public awareness of safeguarding the constitutional foundation of Hong Kong “in an all-around manner”, while cultivating global legal talent.
8 Hong Kong wanted activists should be treated like ‘rats in the street’: John Lee
“I have confidence that Hong Kong can contribute to enhancing the country’s influence in the global governance system,” he said.
Wang Songmiao, secretary general of the central government’s liaison office who also addressed the forum, said Hong Kong had properly handled the relationship between security and development, after implementing the legislation and revamps to its political system.
On Monday, the Chicago-based American Bar Association issued a statement, with its president Deborah Enix-Ross calling for the withdrawal of bounties and arrest warrants for eight exiled Hong Kong activists.
She said targeting people for exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and free speech ran counter to Hong Kong’s obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“Peacefully voicing dissent does not rise to the level of a national security threat. The extraterritorial application of the national security law in this manner is a dangerous precedent,” she warned.
