Lawyers representing 11 Hong Kong opposition figures continued advancing arguments in court in a bid to overturn their convictions for conspiracy to subvert state power, saying they could not be held liable under the national security law for trying to trigger a constitutional mechanism to oust the city leader.
Advertisement
Legal counsel on Tuesday argued that lawmakers were entitled to use their votes as a bargaining chip to push their political demands, while urging an appellate court to be cautious about criminalising political conduct in the legislature.
But prosecutors said the appellants’ complaint was premised on the “wrong footing” and stressed the allegation targeted the group’s “scheme” to paralyse government operations and topple the chief executive.
The prosecution also dismissed the appellants’ defence that they were fighting for universal suffrage as a “red herring.”
They also argued that it would be absurd to suggest lawmakers could do as they pleased without observing the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, which requires the legislature to “examine and approve” bills and lawmakers to abide by their oath of office.
Advertisement
The appeal proceedings at West Kowloon Court arose from the largest national security trial, in which 45 of 47 defendants were convicted and jailed for at least four years and two months for their roles in a scheme to “undermine, destroy or overthrow” the administration.