“National security law: questions raised over Beijing’s sweeping powers, as critics point to new agency, role of adviser in commission”, 21 June 2020

Lawyers and critics have questioned Beijing’s sweeping powers in Hong Kong’s new national security law, as they pointed to the provision for a mainland agency in the city and an adviser to a new commission to be led by the city’s leader.

They argued that the agency, to be called the “Office of the National Security Commissioner of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, would have power over the chief executive, and a cooperation mechanism it must establish with the judiciary risked dealing a serious blow to the city’s autonomy and rule of law.

But pro-Beijing advisers said it was necessary for the central government to set up the dual safeguards – the mainland agency and local commission – as national security issues went beyond the scope of the Hong Kong authorities.

As news emerged… that Beijing was likely to pass the law as early as at the end of June, legal scholars and lawmakers alike were trying to decipher the details of the new legislation as provided by a press statement issued by state news agency Xinhua…

Johannes Chan Man-mun, former law dean at the University of Hong Kong, said the move was alarming.

“The word ‘supervise’ on the mainland is beyond giving advice. It is about giving advice that I expect you to follow, and you simply cannot disobey in theory,” Chan said. “So, it is like setting up a body beyond the chief executive. How can Hong Kong retain a high degree of autonomy?”…

Anita Yip, vice-chairwoman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, warned the cooperation mechanism would hamper the city’s judicial independence.

“Our judicial system has always been independent. How can a judicial department cooperate with the executive branches in action?...” Yip said.

Hong Kong’s leader would have the right to appoint former or incumbent judges, meaning foreign ones would not be expressly ruled out as was previously feared. But critics said the unusual power would diminish the rule of law, with Chan and Yip both saying it was tantamount to having the prosecution handpick judges.

“That is obviously an administrative intervention in the judicial system,” Yip said. “This will also deal a serious blow to the perception of judges’ independence, as everyone will wonder why certain ones are picked to try certain cases.”

Bar Association chairman Philip Dykes said the mechanism could risk turning the judiciary into a branch of the government in the way courts were set up on the mainland…