Hong Kong’s “National Security (Procedure) Regulations” came into effect on June 9th, adopting a “establish first, review later” procedure. This subsidiary regulation empowers the Chief Executive to issue certificates to determine whether a criminal case falls under the category of “national security-related cases.” The amendment has immediately caught the attention of human rights organizations, criticizing the government for expanding its power and systematically suppressing dissenting voices.
The government suddenly submitted documents to the Legislative Council on June 8th, proposing to establish subsidiary legislation under the “National Security Law” called the “National Security (Procedure) Regulations,” which came into effect immediately after being gazetted the next day (June 9th).
The government claims that the new regulations establish mechanisms for defining the “acts that harm national security under other special laws of the SAR.” If the Chief Executive issues a certificate determining that actions in a particular case involve “national security,” the case is classified as a “national security crime case.” The regulations also introduce a mechanism for “alternative charges,” stipulating that if the defendant is charged with a “national security offense,” any alternative charges in the same case will also be automatically considered as “national security offenses.”
Certificates issued by the Chief Executive have absolute binding force on the courts, prohibiting anyone from challenging the certificates in any court or initiating any form of litigation regarding the certificates, effectively excluding the possibility of judicial review. Regardless of the criminal acts or prosecution timing occurring before, during, or after the implementation of the 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law, the Chief Executive can issue certificates to classify cases.
Once a case is classified as a “national security case,” the legal procedures undergo a significant change. Firstly, the case must be heard by a “designated judge” appointed by the Chief Executive. Secondly, the Secretary for Justice has the authority to instruct no jury trial, and hearings may be conducted behind closed doors, deviating from the traditional jury trial system under common law.
Investigation and trial procedures will be significantly intensified. While defendants in regular criminal cases can be detained for a maximum of 48 hours and enjoy a presumption for bail, defendants in “national security cases” can be detained for up to 16 days with significantly higher bail thresholds, unless the judge is convinced that the defendant will not continue to engage in actions harmful to national security, bail is generally not granted.
Additionally, individuals involved in the cases may be compelled to provide their mobile phone passwords; defendants who are granted bail may face “movement restriction orders” or restrictions on consulting specific legal representatives; defendants classified as “national security cases” may lose one-third of their sentence reduction opportunities based on good behavior in prison, unless the Commissioner of Correctional Services believes that their release would not be detrimental to national security.
Adopting a “establish first, review later” approach, the Legislative Council Security Affairs Committee and the Judicial and Legal Affairs Committee held an emergency joint meeting on June 8th to discuss the amendment and established a subcommittee for research after the gazetting on the 9th, with no members opposing.
Chief Executive Li emphasized that issuing certificates is a responsibility that the SAR chief executive must bear, advocating the theory of “national-level masters,” claiming that “plots that endanger national security often involve professional spies or external forces’ meticulous planning.” He reiterated that the purpose of enacting subsidiary regulations is to “enhance legal transparency, reduce disputes,” rather than expand executive powers or introduce new penalties.
Secretary for Justice Lam described this amendment as “drawing intestines while drawing a doll,” aiming to increase legal certainty and eliminate any potential areas of dispute; the power of the Chief Executive to issue certificates comes from existing legal frameworks, with the subsidiary regulations detailing procedures rather than adding to authorities.
Security Bureau Chief Tang emphasized that “national security maintenance is always ongoing, never completed,” asserting the government must continuously review loopholes in the current system. He also dismissed criticisms from the outside that the regulations arbitrarily transform minor crimes into national security offenses.
The Hong Kong Overseas Branch of Amnesty International expressed concerns about the new regulations in a statement. The organization believes that this law will severely undermine defendants’ rights to fair trial at every stage of the legal process, including investigation, bail, trial, and release arrangements. The statement specifically points out that the law grants the Chief Executive excessive executive powers, enabling any criminal act to be arbitrarily classified as a “national security case,” thereby becoming a tool to suppress dissenting voices systematically.
Quoting statistics, the organization stated that the phenomenon of “being detained before trial” in Hong Kong national security cases has become systematic, with nearly 90% of defendants being denied bail, resulting in excessively long pre-trial detention periods. The organization criticized the government for not only ignoring the United Nations’ calls to repeal the National Security Law but also continuously layering power over the existing extensive legal framework, which will systematically suppress dissenting voices against the authorities, causing a widespread “chilling effect” on society.
Columnist Feng Xiqian questioned the Chief Executive’s exercise of issuing security certificates using the excuse that “only the Chief Executive can access sensitive information,” making it impossible for the public to know if such information truly exists or is substantively related to the cases, eroding public confidence in the rule of law due to this “black box” nature.
Feng Xiqian further speculated that as large-scale “national security cases” are gradually concluded, the national security department, in order to demonstrate its value and secure significant public funding, may leverage this mechanism to include ordinary criminal cases into the “national security” framework to maintain a stable number of cases.
Drawing a comparison between the mainland China case of “Yang Jia killing a police officer” and the Hong Kong case of “Leung Chung-ying,” he pointed out that even in the mainland, extreme actions like killing a police officer may not necessarily be considered a “national security case,” questioning that Hong Kong’s standards for qualifying as a “national security case” are even more broad and ambiguous than the mainland, and the absolute effectiveness of the “certificate” essentially places the Chief Executive above the judges.
Upon reviewing media reports, it was found that before the new regulations took effect, the Chief Executive had exercised the power to issue national security certificates in at least three cases.
The first case involved the Department of Justice applying for an injunction against the song “Glory to Hong Kong.” In 2023, the Chief Executive issued a certificate deeming the song related to “national security,” with the Court of Appeal ultimately ruling in a judgment that administrative determinations concerning “national security risks” should be “absolutely complied with,” establishing the precedence of administrative decisions in the “national security domain.”
The second case was regarding the “HKU Student Union Council case” where defendant Leung Chung-ying applied for a personal protection order. In 2024, Leung challenged his recognized alternative charge should not be seen as a “national security offense” to seek sentence reduction. The Chief Executive issued a certificate certifying the case as related to “national security,” leading the court to transfer the case to a national security-designated judge, ultimately rejecting Leung’s application for sentence reduction based on the decision of the National Security Committee.
The third case involved a judicial review application by Teng Hin-tung, linked to the background of the Hong Kong Alliance. In 2024, Teng Hin-tung applied for a judicial review regarding the Correctional Services Department withholding his four imprisoned books, later learning that the Chief Executive had issued a certificate deeming the books involving “national security,” considering the certificate’s absolute binding force on the court; Teng Hin-tung described the certificate as a “nuclear bomb,” believing the lawsuit had no chance of success and was ultimately forced to withdraw it.