Former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance go on trial under the national security law on charges of inciting subversion with historic implications for civic freedoms
Two prominent figures in Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, along with fellow activist Albert Ho, have begun trial in the High Court in a case brought under the city’s national security law that could see each sentenced to up to ten years’ imprisonment if convicted.
The charges of inciting subversion relate to their roles as leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the organisation that for decades orchestrated the annual candlelight vigil remembering victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing.
Their trial is one of the most high-profile uses of the national security law since its imposition by Beijing in 2020, at the end of massive anti-government protests.
The vigil, once a powerful expression of Hong Kong’s relative autonomy and civil liberties, was banned by authorities in 2020 and the alliance disbanded the following year amid legal and political pressure.
The three defendants are accused of “inciting others to organise, plan or act through unlawful means with a view to subvert state power,” and face a maximum sentence of a decade in jail if found guilty.
The trial is expected to last around seventy-five days and is being heard by a panel of three government-vetted judges rather than a jury, reflecting the legal procedures established for national security cases.
The prosecution characterises the defendants’ actions as attempts to challenge the constitutional order, while supporters of the activists frame the case as an effort to suppress remembrance of the Tiananmen crackdown and curtail freedom of expression and assembly in the city.
The proceedings have drawn international attention, with rights groups and foreign governments expressing concern about the implications for civil society and historical memory in Hong Kong as the city navigates its evolving legal and political landscape.
The charges of inciting subversion relate to their roles as leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the organisation that for decades orchestrated the annual candlelight vigil remembering victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing.
Their trial is one of the most high-profile uses of the national security law since its imposition by Beijing in 2020, at the end of massive anti-government protests.
The vigil, once a powerful expression of Hong Kong’s relative autonomy and civil liberties, was banned by authorities in 2020 and the alliance disbanded the following year amid legal and political pressure.
The three defendants are accused of “inciting others to organise, plan or act through unlawful means with a view to subvert state power,” and face a maximum sentence of a decade in jail if found guilty.
The trial is expected to last around seventy-five days and is being heard by a panel of three government-vetted judges rather than a jury, reflecting the legal procedures established for national security cases.
The prosecution characterises the defendants’ actions as attempts to challenge the constitutional order, while supporters of the activists frame the case as an effort to suppress remembrance of the Tiananmen crackdown and curtail freedom of expression and assembly in the city.
The proceedings have drawn international attention, with rights groups and foreign governments expressing concern about the implications for civil society and historical memory in Hong Kong as the city navigates its evolving legal and political landscape.












































