Political situation
Written by: Zheng Baosheng
2019-11-20 00:01
Last updated: 2019-11-20 00:01The Court of First Instance of the High Court ruled yesterday (18th) that the section of the Prohibition of Masks Ordinance made under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance was in breach of the Basic Law.
A spokesman for the Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress today (19th) commented that the judgment was not in conformity with the Basic Law and emphasized that only the NPC Standing Committee has the power to determine whether Hong Kong law complies with the Basic Law.
The former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Li Guoneng, issued an English statement, describing the Law Society’s statement as a surprise and shock.
Since 1997, the court has been empowered to determine that the law violates the Basic Law.
Li Guoneng’s English statement stated that the statement of the Law Commission seems to indicate that the Hong Kong courts have no right to invalidate the laws of Hong Kong on the grounds that the law violates the Basic Law. If true, things are surprising and shocking.
Li Guoneng said that since 1997, the courts in Hong Kong have always had the above powers, and at the same time they have fully accepted the interpretation of the Hong Kong law of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress did not offer other opinions during the interpretation of 1999 and beyond.
Li Guoneng hopes that this is not the original intention of the Law Commission. "Or, this statement only means that any NPC Standing Committee interpretation is binding, and the courts in Hong Kong will fully accept the NPC interpretation."
Li Guoneng emphasized that the power of the NPC to interpret the Basic Law should only be exercised under special circumstances. After the court has made a judgment, it should also avoid reinterpreting the law to avoid people's negative views on the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary.
Li Guoneng said that since 1997, the courts in Hong Kong have always had the above powers, and at the same time they have fully accepted the interpretation of the Hong Kong law of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. (Getty Images)
The original statement of Li Guoneng is as follows:
The statement appears to suggest that the HK courts have no power to hold HK legislation to be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with the BL. If this is what was meant, it is surprising and alarming. Since 1997, our courts have held that they Have such power, appliance fully accepting that any interpretation by the NPCSC would be binding in HK. The NPCSC in its 1999 and subsequent Interpretations did not suggest otherwise.
I hope this is not what the statement meant. Maybe, it meant that any NPCSC Interpretation would be binding which our courts have fully accepted.
As I have previously stated, the NPCSC's power to interpret the BL should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. It should refrain from doing so after a court judgment as that would have an adverse impact on at least the perception of judicial independence in HK.
[Forbidden Mask Method] The Bar Association issued a statement approving the "Legal Error" of the Law Commission
High Court ruling masked law unconstitutional joint office: the final judgment is undoubtedly the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress
[Forbidden Mask Method] Tan Huizhu said that the government should appeal to Tan Yaozong: If the interpretation does not mean losing and winning
Forbidden mask