Prohibition of Masking Act ｜ The Appeals Tribunal ruled that most of the Hong Kong government had to go directly to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office: the Chief Executive would benefit from effective governance

Instant China

Written by: Cui Dexing

2020-04-13 17:21

The turmoil caused by the amendments last year triggered many fierce conflicts. The government introduced the "Emergency Law" to establish the "Masking Prohibition Act". The Court of First Instance ruled in November last year that the "Emergency Regulations Ordinance" and the "Prohibition of Masking Regulations" were unconstitutional and issued an order. The "Masking Prohibition Act" was invalid, and the government party appealed against the ruling.

On 9th, the Court of Appeal ruled that part of the government ’s appeals were justified. Among them, the government cited the “Emergency Law” to appeal, and cited the “Embargoed Law” established by the “Emergency Law”, it considered that the ban on masked law in lawful assembly was unconstitutional. However, it is not unconstitutional to restrict the illegal assembly, or to mask people without permission, in other words, the Court of Appeal believes that the new rules apply to persons masked at illegal meetings.

In response to the ruling, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council (Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office) stated that this would help the Chief Executive and the SAR Government to effectively exercise governance, effectively stop riots and maintain social order.

The Court of Appeal ruled that part of the government ’s appeal was justified, and it was unconstitutional to ban masking only during legal assembly. (Profile picture)

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office stated that the Appeals Tribunal of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region made a judgment on the judicial review of the "Masking Prohibition Regulations" on April 9 in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, ruling on the Chief Executive in the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. The content of the emergency regulations made in conjunction with the Executive Council on the grounds of "endangering public safety" complies with the Basic Law. The "Masking Prohibition Regulation" made by quoting the regulations continues to be effective, correcting the original judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court.

According to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, this is conducive to the effective administration of the Chief Executive and the SAR Government in accordance with the Basic Law and the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in particular to deal with emergency situations and endanger public safety in accordance with the law, effectively stop riots and control social order.

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office emphasized that Hong Kong affairs belong to China's internal affairs, and no foreign country has the right to interfere. Some Western media have made irresponsible remarks on the judgment of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which is contrary to the principle of judicial independence that they advertise. "We strongly oppose this."

Prohibition of Masking Act ｜ The Appeals Tribunal ruled that most of the government should be straight to the law and politics: the decision favored trusting the government

Masking prohibited method. Interpretation of the Judgment ｜ The Appeals Tribunal: The Emergency Law gives chief executives emergency powers

Prohibition of Masked Law ︳Panmin Criticism of Taixin Government Continues Appeal

Hong Kong and Macau Office