Hong Kong begins national security trial of Tiananmen vigil group

HONG KONG – Hong Kong’s High Court began hearing on Jan 22 a landmark national security trial of three former leaders of a now disbanded group that organised annual vigils marking Beijing’s 1989 Tiananmen Square

crackdown on pro-democracy protesters

.

Once legal in China-ruled Hong Kong, such public commemorations were hailed as a symbol of the Asian financial hub’s relative freedom, compared with mainland China.

“Justice resides in the hearts of the people, and history will bear witness,” said Mr Tang Ngok-kwan, a former senior member of the disbanded group, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China.

He was among dozens who braved cold weather to queue outside the court building, which was tightly guarded by scores of police officers and vehicles.

The events on June 4, 1989, when Chinese troops opened fire to end the student-led protests, are not publicly discussed in China, which treats the date as taboo and allows no public remembrance.

Blocked in 2020 because of Covid-19 curbs, the Hong Kong memorials have not resumed since China imposed a tough national security law that year.

Several June 4 monuments, such as the Pillar Of Shame, a memorial for those killed in the crackdown that depicted dozens of torn and twisted bodies, were also removed from three Hong Kong universities.

Under the national security law, Lee Cheuk-yan, 68, Albert Ho, 74, and Chow Hang-tung, 40, the three former leaders of the group, now face charges of “inciting subversion of state power”, which carry punishments of up to 10 years in jail.

Chow and Lee, one of the city’s veteran democratic leaders, pleaded not guilty, while Ho, also a former chairman of the city’s largest opposition Democratic Party, pleaded guilty.

The trial is among the last of several such major cases, with Chow, the former vice-chair of the group, held on remand for more than 1,500 days after being denied bail.

Subverting state power a key question in trial

In an opening statement, prosecutors said the case centred on whether the alliance’s publicly stated goal of “ending one-party rule” constituted illegally inciting others to carry out acts aimed at subverting state power.

The other key focus of the case was whether such acts amounted to “overthrowing or undermining” China’s system of government, they added.

Ho pleaded guilty to a summary read by prosecutor Ned Lai that said “ending one-party rule” referred to putting an end to the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), in violation of the Constitution as there was no legal means to end it.

As evidence, Mr Lai cited the June 4th Museum run by the alliance, with slogans and speeches Ho uttered at candelight vigils.

In the past, the alliance had said it hoped to see a democratic China, and was not aiming to destroy the CPC, but to see it contest free elections.

Rights groups and some foreign governments have criticised such national security cases against prominent democrats as a weaponisation of the rule of law to silence dissent.

“This case is not about national security – it is about rewriting history and punishing those who refuse to forget the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown,” said Ms Sarah Brooks, the Asia deputy director of rights group Amnesty International.

Beijing says Hong Kong’s national security law was necessary to restore order after sometimes violent protests rocked the Asian financial hub for months in 2019.

Detained since September 2021, Chow, a Cambridge-educated barrister, is one of the few democratic campaigners still speaking out against the CPC’s crackdown.

Chow, wearing a brown coat and sporting a long ponytail, was allowed to leave the dock to represent herself in court. She thanked supporters for “braving the wind overnight”.

In past interview remarks, she told Reuters: “The state can lock up people, but not their thinking, just as it can lock up facts but not alter truth.”

In November 2025, the High Court rejected Chow’s bid to terminate the trial.

In a judgment, it said it would rely on evidence and legal principles, and “not allow trials to become a tool for political repression... or an abuse of judicial procedures”, as Chow claimed. REUTERS