Hong Kong Tiananmen activists defend calls to end one-party rule in security law trial

HONG KONG: Tiananmen activist Chow Hang-tung (鄒幸彤) told a Hong Kong court on 19 May 2026 that she “totally embraced” actions prosecutors alleged were criminal, as closing arguments entered their second day in a landmark national security trial tied to the city’s banned Tiananmen Square commemorations.

Chow, 41, is standing trial alongside veteran labour activist Lee Cheuk-yan (李卓人), 69, on charges of “incitement to subversion” under Hong Kong’s Beijing-imposed national security law.

The pair have pleaded not guilty and face a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment if convicted.

The prosecution alleges that the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance repeatedly called for an end to one-party rule in China through annual candlelight vigils commemorating Beijing’s 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The Alliance had organised the gatherings for decades and drew tens of thousands of participants annually before authorities banned the vigil in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic.

Chow, a Cambridge-educated barrister representing herself in court, smiled at supporters seated in the public gallery before proceedings began.

Addressing a three-judge panel, Chow said the unusual nature of the case lay in the fact that the defendants did not dispute the actions cited by prosecutors.

“The defendants fully embraced the actions that the prosecution alleged to be crimes,” Chow told the court.

“What is really at dispute is what the law suppresses and what it protects,” she added.

Arguments over constitutional order

Prosecutors argued during closing submissions that the Alliance endangered national security “in the name of human rights”.

They said freedoms of speech and association were “not absolute rights” and argued the group’s political slogan amounted to undermining China’s constitutional system.

According to prosecutors, repeated calls to “end one-party rule” effectively advocated overthrowing the political structure established under the Chinese constitution and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The prosecution also cited a 2018 constitutional amendment which described CCP leadership as the “defining feature” of China’s socialist system.

Government lawyers argued there were therefore no “lawful means” to end CCP rule within China’s constitutional framework.

Barrister Erik Shum, representing Lee, rejected that interpretation during earlier submissions on 18 May.

Shum argued the prosecution relied on what he described as a “tautological theory”.

“We ask: How exactly did the Alliance incite others to overthrow the CCP?” Shum told the court.

“And my submission is that the prosecution has always reverted to the claim that ending CCP rule is illegal,” he added.

Chow also challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of constitutional principles.

She told the court the Alliance’s slogan aimed “to put an end to a state of unrestrained power”.

“The constitution itself is a tool... to put an end to various forms of autocracy,” Chow said.

She added that constitutions existed “to restrain those in power, not to restrain ordinary people”.

Chow described allegations that the group had incited people to violate the constitution as “completely absurd”.

Legacy of the Tiananmen vigils

Hong Kong and Macau were long the only places on Chinese soil where public commemorations of the 4 June 1989 Tiananmen crackdown were permitted.

For decades, the Alliance organised the largest annual public remembrance event related to the crackdown anywhere in China.

The gatherings became a defining symbol of Hong Kong’s political freedoms under the “one country, two systems” framework established after the city’s return to Chinese rule in 1997.

Authorities banned the vigils beginning in 2020, citing public health restrictions during the pandemic.

The Alliance’s leaders were later charged under the national security law introduced by Beijing that same year following large-scale anti-government protests in 2019.

The law criminalises acts including secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

Hong Kong and Beijing officials have repeatedly defended the legislation as necessary to restore stability and public order in the financial hub.

Critics, however, argue the law has sharply curtailed civil liberties and political opposition.

Lee had previously told the court during testimony in March that the phrase “end one-party rule” did not mean overthrowing the CCP leadership by force.

He said he hoped the party would eventually reform and grant Chinese citizens “the civic rights and happiness they deserved”.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Lee sat quietly in the dock while Chow delivered her submissions.

A third defendant, former lawmaker Albert Ho, 74, pleaded guilty in January.

Judges expected to rule in July

The court concluded final arguments on Tuesday.

Judge Alex Lee, one of three government-designated national security judges overseeing the case, said the court hoped to deliver verdicts for Chow and Lee in July.

Rights groups criticised the prosecution as the trial neared its conclusion.

Amnesty International deputy regional director Sarah Brooks said the case relied on “vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion’”.

"The charges against Chow and Lee should be dropped, and the authorities must ensure that people in Hong Kong can freely remember the events of 4 June 1989 without fear of retaliation."

“Chow and Lee are prisoners of conscience, incarcerated simply for exercising their human rights, and they must be immediately and unconditionally released.”

Observers said the disappearance of the annual Tiananmen vigil and the prosecution of its organisers reflected broader political changes in Hong Kong since the introduction of the national security law.