Legal representatives warn Beijing over judiciary

Hong Kong's judicial independence is increasingly in the spotlight after comments from Beijing appearing to question the HKSAR's judicial system. File photo: Reuters

The legal subsector of the election committee has issued a joint statement urging Beijing to respect judicial independence, following a Reuters report that senior judges are worried that the HKSAR's legal system is under siege from the central government.



The statement, which was signed by all 30 members of the legal subsector of the election committee, was issued on Wednesday evening and called on Beijing "to respect the solemn promise of judicial independence enshrined in the Basic Law and refrain from doing or saying anything which might be perceived as interfering or undermining the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary."



It also stressed that judicial independence was constitutionally entrenched in the Basic Law.



"Preservation of judicial independence in Hong Kong is a key indicator of the success of 'one country, two systems'. Self-restraint on the part of the Central Authorities underpins any successful implementation of the 'one country, two systems' principle," the statement said.



"Any attempts by the central authorities (including Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government and their officers) to interfere in the local affairs of Hong Kong (including making comments on judicial decisions with a view to affecting them) could amount to a violation of Article 22 of the Basic Law."



A Reuters report on Tuesday quoted three senior judges as saying the independence of Hong Kong's judicial system is "under assault" from the Chinese Communist Party, posing the gravest threat to the rule of law in the SAR since the handover.



Legal scholar Johannes Chan said separately that Beijing appears to be growing increasingly impatient with an independent judicial system in Hong Kong that it fails to understand or appreciate, and attacks on the judiciary could destroy the only remaining difference between the two systems on either side of the border.