Jimmy Lai trial hears Hong Kong activist believed national security law was imposed to persecute ‘political enemies’
by Hans Tse · Hong Kong Free Press HKFPA detained activist has told the trial of media mogul Jimmy Lai that he believed a national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing four years ago was designed to persecute its “political enemies.”
Prosecution witness Andy Li testified on Thursday that he continued international lobbying, including efforts to persuade foreign governments to scrap mutual legal aid and fugitive surrender arrangements with Hong Kong, even after the security law came into force on June 30, 2020.
Marc Corlett, Lai’s defence lawyer, asked Li under cross-examination how he ascertained the legality of his campaign after the enactment of the security law, which targets offences including collusion with foreign forces.
“My understanding was that Beijing would move its goalposts, and it was not for me or other citizens to know where the red line was drawn,” Li said in Cantonese as the trial entered its 58th day.
“Because the National People’s Congress [of China] drafted the national security law to impose it on Hong Kong, I was expecting it to offer a broad interpretation and be used against political enemies,” Li said, drawing a comparison between the security law and the mainland Chinese offence of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” commonly used against political dissent.
See also: Hong Kong activist tells national security trial he never spoke to or met media mogul Jimmy Lai
Lai, 76, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiring to collude with foreign forces, punishable by life imprisonment, and one count of conspiring to produce “seditious” publications.
Li has pleaded guilty to conspiring to collude with foreign forces and agreed to testify against Lai. Prosecutors allege that Li, as a core member of an international advocacy group “Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong” (SWHK), carried out Lai’s instructions to request foreign sanctions and other “hostile acts” against the city and China.
Messaging records shown to the court showed that Li wrote to UK-based activist Luke de Pulford in July 2020, discussing what he termed the “broad provisions” and the “global jurisdiction” of the security law. De Pulford has been named by the prosecution as one of Lai’s co-conspirators.
Alex Lee, one of three designated national security judges hearing the case, asked why the witness did not stop his campaign given the risk of breaching the new law, which stipulates that it only applies to acts committed after its enactment.
“If Beijing is to persecute you, it will find a charge against you… regardless of it being the national security law or not,” Li said.
“My suspicion at that time was that Beijing had recognised me as a political enemy, and that the regime had already found ways to prosecute me,” he said, adding that he thought it was only a matter of time before he was arrested.
The witness also said he believed his international activism was legal before the promulgation of the security law.
Chan Tsz-wah
The defence asked Li to explain his connection with “T”, a pseudonym of paralegal Chan Tsz-wah, whom prosecutors allege was a middleman passing on Jimmy Lai’s instructions to Li to further the collusion conspiracy.
The court heard Chan was part of a team of “valiant protesters” – a reference to those who opted for violence during the 2019 protests and unrest – and that the team was involved in events such as the Yuen Long mob attack and the protest in front of China’s liaison office in the city.
Li said Chan supported the use of violence in the unrest, because it would “create a perception that the Hong Kong government could not effectively govern the territory.”
He said Chan also told him the team was linked to an incident in which a gun was fired in Tai Po and an explosion near the border around New Year’s Day of 2020.
The witness added that Chan once made a “throwaway remark” about having Israeli forces provide training to “an army of valiant protesters,” but Li was not certain how serious he was.
“Those were two different fronts – if we push international lobbying to the extreme, it would be to set up a government-in-exile,” Li said. “And the extreme for valiant protests would be to create an army.”
Attempted escape
Corlett also drew the court’s attention to the arrest of Li and others by the Chinese coastguard in August 2020 during a foiled attempt to escape to Taiwan by speedboat.
The court heard that Li was arrested by Hong Kong national security police on August 10 and granted bail two days later.
Li said, shortly after his release, Chan told him an escape plan would be arranged. An unidentified person later instructed him to leave for Taiwan by sea and to surrender to Taiwanese authorities upon arrival, he added.
“[The plan] was that, if I could make it on time, there would be a Czech delegation to Taiwan at that time, and that I could get on their plane,” he said, adding that from there he would go to London.
Separately, Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios inquired about Li’s profession and the source of his income. The court previously heard that Li exhausted his HK$3 million savings making advance payments for a global advertising campaign to garner international support for the city’s pro-democracy movement.
Li said he was born in 1990 and had been a software developer for almost 10 years by 2019. He had over HK$4 million in savings and his programming business was his sole source of income at that time.
The witness, concluding his testimony, said he paid most of the expenses during his international lobbying campaigns and had not received sponsorship from the crowdfunding donations raised by SWHK or Lai.
The trial resumes on Friday, when Chan is expected to take the witness stand.
When Lai’s trial began on December 18, 2023, he had already spent more than 1,000 days in custody after having had his bail revoked in December 2020. Three judges – handpicked by Hong Kong’s chief executive to hear national security cases – are presiding over Lai’s trial in the place of a jury, marking a departure from the city’s common law traditions.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team