Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai did not ask activists and foreign politicians to stop calling for sanctions even after Beijing’s national security law in the city was passed, a prosecutor has said.
Continuing to deliver closing arguments in Lai’s national security trial, lead prosecutor Anthony Chau accused the founder of pro-democracy tabloid Apple Daily of being the “mastermind” in an alleged foreign collusion plot against the city’s authorities.
The prosecution said Lai himself admitted his commitment to lobbying for sanctions was “unwavering,” even if he risked breaking the national security law by doing so.
Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest, criminalising subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure.
The tycoon stands accused of two charges of conspiring to commit foreign collusion under the Beijing-imposed security law, and another charge of conspiring to publish seditious materials under colonial-era legislation. He faces life behind bars if convicted.
Collaborators
Chau on Wednesday said that even after Beijing’s national security law in the city was passed, Lai did not stop his alleged collaborators, including members of the overseas activist group Stand With Hong Kong (SWHK), and the foreign politicians group the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), from continuing to lobby for sanctions.
The prosecution cited open letters, articles, and social media posts from SWHK calling on foreign governments, including those of the UK, the Czech Republic, Ireland, and Portugal, to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and Beijing officials, and urging support for the “people of Hong Kong.”
A focal point of Lai’s trial was his ties to two activists linked to SWHK, Chan Tsz-wah, or Wayland, and Andy Li, both of whom were charged alongside the tycoon and have testified against him.
Citing Chan’s testimony, Chau also said that Lai had “never” told the activist there was any change in his stance on lobbying for sanctions, even after the enactment of the law.
Chau also pointed to a meeting weeks before the national security law was enacted in which Lai encouraged Chan to press on with lobbying efforts, saying the security legislation was “more bark than bite.”
Lobbying groups SWHK and IPAC, indeed, continued their efforts after the national security law took effect, the court heard.
“Lai knew exactly what IPAC was doing at the time,” Chau said, citing updates that Lai received about the international parliamentary group in the weeks after the law was enacted, as well as the tycoon’s own social media activity.
The prosecution also argued that Lai maintained ties with retired US army general Jack Keane, ex-US deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz, and US state department advisor Christian Whiton after the security law came into effect.
Lai had admitted trying to inform foreign governments about Hong Kong’s situation and appealing to them to condemn the city’s authorities, Chau said. But he also argued that Lai went further than what he admitted.
The tycoon sought to demonstrate to Hongkongers, through meetings with the former US officials, that “foreign governments had not abandoned them,” Chau said.
Chau also said that the Apple Daily founder used the paper as a platform to urge sanctions on Beijing, a clear betrayal of national interests and security.
He added that Lai’s description of the paper as both “anti-communist” and a “neutral defender of Hong Kong’s core values” were conflicting.
The defence also began closing arguments on Wednesday, as Lai’s lawyer, Robert Pang, told the court that it was “not wrong to support freedom of expression.”
“It is not wrong to try to persuade the government to change its policy, nor is it wrong not to love a particular administration, or even the country,” Pang said. “You can’t force someone to think in one way or another.”
Advocating for policy change through “pressure, whether from inside Hong Kong or outside,” was not a crime, the lawyer added.
