On December 16, 2025, the Hong Kong High Court ruled on two counts of “conspiring with foreign forces” and one count of “conspiring to publish seditious publications” against Jimmy Lai, the founder of Next Digital. In the judgment, the judge described Lai as “untrustworthy,” noting that he claimed to have only learned about the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) when he testified in court, despite evidence from Apple Daily reports, Twitter posts, and Lai’s communications showing his knowledge of IPAC’s operations.
According to the judgment, Lai’s name was mentioned 161 times while IPAC was referenced nearly 200 times. Luke de Pulford, one of the founders of IPAC listed as a co-conspirator in the case, stated on social media that Lai was convicted in a sham trial. He emphasized that there was no actual collaboration between Lai and IPAC, despite the accusations.
IPAC released a statement yesterday, accusing the Hong Kong government of ignoring evidence provided by IPAC that could have refuted the allegations. The organization expressed willingness to cooperate with Lai but clarified that no such collaboration had ever taken place.
In a statement from June 14 of the previous year, IPAC highlighted that several legislators associated with the organization were mentioned hundreds of times in Lai’s case without being contacted for evidence or testimony. IPAC considered this a serious flaw in the investigative and judicial procedures, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Despite offering to provide evidence to the Hong Kong Department of Justice regarding Lai’s case, IPAC received no response. The legislators mentioned were willing to act as fact witnesses and provide information to clarify their involvement.
IPAC strongly condemned the implication of its secretariat members as co-conspirators in Lai’s case in a statement issued on January 2. It described the situation as a severe case of judicial overreach and an unacceptable violation of the rights of foreign citizens.
On February 11, IPAC reiterated that Jimmy Lai had no part in the establishment or operation of the organization. It highlighted that many media outlets, including Lai and Apple Daily, had received press releases and information from IPAC when it was founded, as it was deemed to be in the public interest.
During the trial, references were made to Lai’s Twitter account where he used the hashtag #ipacglobal. Lai initially claimed that an assistant CEO at Next Digital managed his account; however, he later admitted he might not have seen the specific posts with the IPAC tag. He also mentioned not being aware of IPAC at the time of the posts. Additionally, he reposted IPAC tweets around four days after his initial arrest but claimed he had no recollection of the specific post.
IPAC emphasized that the attempts by the Hong Kong government to link Jimmy Lai with the organization were baseless. The organization reiterated its respect for Lai’s dedication to democratic values and stated it would be willing to collaborate if given the opportunity. They condemned the government’s attempts to fabricate charges against Lai and expressed readiness to provide evidence to refute the allegations, urging for a halt to unjust prosecutions driven by political motives.