Legal underpinnings of Beijing’s resolution on unseating lawmakers raises eyebrows among Hong Kong lawyers
- Both the Law Society and the Bar Association, together representing some 11,500 legal professionals, have questioned the legality of the move
- Pro-establishment convenor Martin Liao, however, maintains the resolution enjoys ‘constitutional status’ by virtue of being handed down by top lawmaking body
The legality of Beijing’s unprecedented resolution allowing for the summary disqualification of four opposition Hong Kong lawmakers has raised concerns among the city’s legal community, even as the pro-establishment camp insisted on Friday that the unilaterally imposed rule was constitutionally sound.
Hong Kong’s Law Society, which represents more than 10,000 solicitors, urged the government on Friday to address the legal basis behind the removal, a day after the Bar Association accused Beijing of impairing “legal certainty” with its ruling.
01:13
Hong Kong Legco ‘not a rubber stamp’, says Carrie Lam after all opposition lawmakers resign
“To ensure due process, transparency and accountability in all its actions, the [city] government is duty bound to address clearly those concerns, in particular the legal basis on which the disqualification was effected,” the Law Society said in a statement.
Seven Law Society council members – including University of Hong Kong academic Eric Cheung Tat-ming and human rights lawyers Kenneth Lam, Mark Daly and Jonathan Ross – also released a separate statement in their personal capacities taking an even more strident tone in opposition to the move.
“Legislators are representatives of the people who must not be unseated by the executive branch alone; otherwise the right of political participation would be seriously abrogated,” said the seven, who also included three newly elected council members, Davyd Wong, Michelle Tsoi Wing-tak and Janet Pang Ho-yan.