He likened the top city official’s argument to the Latin legal term argumentum ad hominem, which means one has concentrated not on the issue but on the personality of the person holding an opposing view.

“Arguments, particularly legal arguments, stand on merits, not on attacking the character of your opponents or the person you perceive to be your opponent.

“It is important to say that the Bar Association, like myself, is not opposing Carrie Lam or [any] individuals. They just want ... a clear explanation on why the co-location arrangement is lawful.”

Pro-Beijing veteran Maria Tam backtracks on comments over legal basis for rail link deal

The stance by Dykes’ team was echoed days later by the association, which said it was “appalled” by the NPCSC decision. The professional body’s latest comment contrasted sharply with its three-paragraph statement released in October.

Asked whether the association’s statement had come too late and whether the legal community had missed the chance to turn the tide, Dykes said it was regrettable that the strong stance “came later rather than sooner” but at least the point had been made now.

The professional body, he added, had been less vocal than at other times, suggesting it may be down to the style of its chairman, who carries significant influence in directing the council.

Carrie Lam hits out at ‘elitist mentality’ of lawyers on checkpoint plan

While the sensitive issue had led Dykes to contest the Bar Council chairmanship this month, he said he decided to run again because he foresaw similar constitutional debates emerging this year.

Paul Lam Ting-kwok, the incumbent Bar Association chairman and seeking a second term, has been reiterating the body should remain apolitical and refrain from acting as a spokesman for any political faction. Executive Council member Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a Lam supporter, also said the body should not become a “political tool for some”.

Joint checkpoint plan will damage rule of law, legal heavyweights say

Dykes denied suggestions his team was politically charged. It includes local legal heavyweights Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun and senior counsel Lawrence Lok Ying-kam. Dykes said he was not a member of any political party and that his team’s objective was to advance the rule of law, not a particular ideological agenda.

The human rights expert said he hoped the barristers would vote according to their conscience on January 18, and not for the candidates who would improve their personal interests but rather support those who would better safeguard the interests of the bar and the rule of law in the city.

Dykes also hoped the election process would reflect common ground with Paul Lam’s team as well as the unified backing of the bar.