The two judges of the British Supreme Court sitting in Hong Kong’s highest court announced their resignation on Wednesday March 30, in disagreement with the security law imposed by China in 2020 in the autonomous territory.
Read alsoA coup de grace for press freedom in Hong Kong
“We have seen a systematic erosion of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Since the imposition of the national security law, authorities have cracked down on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of association“, denounced the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Liz Truss, in a press release. “The situation has reached a crisis point, where it is no longer tenable for British judges to sit in Hong Kong’s main court, at the risk of legitimizing oppression“, she added.
“Political freedom and expression”
In accordance with the agreement providing for the return of this former British colony to China in 1997, British judges have sat since that date on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the highest court in Hong Kong. There are also retired judges from the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada. In all, eight of the twelve non-permanent foreign magistrates are British, including the president and vice-president of the British Supreme Court who have announced their resignation “with immediate effectin a separate statement.
“I have concluded, in agreement with the government, that the judges of the Supreme Court cannot continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from the values of political freedom and freedom of expressionsaid Supreme Court President Robert Reed, announcing his departure and that of his colleague Patrick Hodge. It was unclear whether the other UK judges also intended to step down immediately.
Read also“It’s like a prison”: these French people forced to flee Hong Kong’s anti-Covid health madness
The national security law, enacted at the end of June 2020 after a wave of protests for freedoms in Hong Kong, plans to punish separatist activities, “terrorists“, subversion, or even foreign interference in the Chinese autonomous territory. London had denounced her as a “manifest violationof the autonomy enjoyed by its former colony, deciding in response to extend the rights to immigration, and ultimately access to British citizenship, for many inhabitants of the territory.