Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying launched an all-out legal offensive against the pro-democracy camp on Friday, moving to have four more of its lawmakers disqualified over improper oath-taking. His latest targets accused Leung of “staging a coup” to overturn election results and “score” with Beijing for a possible second term, but the justice minister insisted the bid to have them kicked out of the Legislative Council was “free of political consideration”. Their supporters marched from Legco to the Chief Executive’s Office last night to protest, while civic groups are planning a bigger rally on New Year’s Day. Legco set to announce vacant seats left by disqualified localists in preparation for by-election The government announced on Friday that it had “commenced legal proceedings” against veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, academic Edward Yiu Chung-yim and lecturer Lau Siu-lai, asking the High Court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legco seats vacant. None of them have advocated Hong Kong independence, although Law and Lau have called for self-determination. The government’s move came two days after an appeal court upheld the lower court’s decision to disqualify pro-independence lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, applying Beijing’s controversial interpretation of the Basic Law to require oaths to be taken sincerely and accurately. Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung denied any political persecution behind the new wave of civil suits and judicial reviews against the four, saying his department had consulted with senior counsel from outside and the government respected the fact that the lawmakers were democratically elected. “That is an important factor,” Yuen said. “However, it is equally important that all Legco members … should act in accordance with the law. “The legal action has absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing or overturning the intention and wishes of the voters.” Hong Kong lawmakers accused of setting aside solemnity in taking oaths The government also issued a statement stressing it had the duty to implement the city’s mini-constitution and check if lawmakers complied with its oath-taking requirements. The Justice Department’s representatives submitted their application to the High Court in Admiralty just 10 minutes before it closed for the day. In the writs, the government accused the four lawmakers of turning their swearing-in ceremony on October 12 into a “political tool” to display their own agenda, thereby “declining” to take the oath. It took reference from the first oath-taking court case, involving Yau and Baggio Leung, to argue the court would be bound by the Beijing interpretation which required immediate disqualification in case of non-compliance with oath-taking requirements. Leung Kwok-hung said the government was mounting “a coup d’état as it seeks to change the people’s political choice”. He said he would have to resort to crowdfunding to pay his legal bill. Law accused the chief executive of waging “total war against all democrats and all voters supporting democracy”. Lau and Yiu were worried the lawsuit would have a chilling effect on other opposition lawmakers, adding that the chief executive was trying to please Beijing and seek a second term. Leung Kowk-hung, Law and Lau, along with disqualified pair Yau and Baggio Leung, won a combined 183,236 votes in September’s elections in the geographical constituency. Yiu, who represents the architectural and surveying functional constituency, bagged 2,491 votes. If all three lost their seats, their camp would no longer keep its 17-16 majority in the constituency, which is necessary for them to vote down motions they oppose. At the swearing-in session, Leung Kwok-hung took his oath holding a yellow umbrella – an Occupy symbol – and chanted slogans such as “We need no approval from the Chinese Communist Party!” He also tore up a copy of the controversial political reform framework decreed by Beijing on August 31, 2014. Law raised his intonation when saying the word “Republic” in “People’s Republic of China”, as if asking a question. Yiu inserted this sentence in his oath: “I will uphold procedural justice in Hong Kong, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve the city’s sustainable development”. Lau paused for six seconds between every word of her oath. She later wrote on Facebook that she had meant to render the statement “meaningless”. Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the mainland’s semi-official think-tank, the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, said Leung would “score points in Beijing’s eyes” as it showed that he was taking the Basic Law interpretation seriously. “But re-election hinges on many factors, such as governance capability, popularity and the ability to unite Hong Kong,” Lau added. Chinese University political scientist Ma Ngok said it was confusing what signal Beijing was trying to send. “Two days ago it was trying to create harmony and decided to let some pan-democrats get back their home-return permits, but now it is seeing Leung suing them,” he said. “It leaves one wonder if Beijing is losing control of Hong Kong.” University of Hong Kong legal scholar Eric Cheung Tat-ming questioned whether the government had paid proper regard to the fact that the four lawmakers had been chosen by their respective constituencies in free and fair elections. “These lawsuits will also make Hong Kong a laughing stock in the international community,” Cheung said.