On Monday, November 3, 2025, a Hong Kong court delivered a decision that reverberated across the city’s pro-democracy circles and beyond: the court rejected an attempt by Chow Hang-tung, a prominent human rights barrister and former organizer of the annual Tiananmen Square vigil, to quash her indictment under the city’s sweeping national security law. The ruling, reported by multiple outlets including the Associated Press and local Hong Kong media, marks the latest development in a high-profile legal saga that has become emblematic of the city’s changing political climate since Beijing imposed the controversial law in 2020.
Chow Hang-tung, together with fellow activists Albert Ho and Lee Cheuk-yan, faces charges of inciting subversion—a crime that, under Hong Kong’s national security law, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The trio’s alleged offense? According to prosecutors, they incited others to challenge the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party by unlawful means, a charge stemming from their roles in organizing the city’s decades-old vigil commemorating the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.
The vigil, once held every June 4 in Victoria Park and drawing tens of thousands of participants, was for decades the only large-scale public commemoration of the Tiananmen crackdown permitted on Chinese soil. That ended in 2020, when authorities banned the event, citing pandemic restrictions—a move widely seen by critics as part of a broader crackdown on dissent following the massive anti-government protests that swept Hong Kong in 2019. As reported by the Associated Press, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China—the group behind the vigil—came under intense pressure, with police accusing it of acting as a foreign agent. The group denied the allegations but ultimately disbanded in 2021, as the legal and political environment grew even more inhospitable.
Monday’s court hearing was a tense affair, with Chow, who is representing herself, arguing that the indictment was so broad and vague as to be a “catch-all charge.” She pressed the court for clarity, contending that the authorities had failed to specify what unlawful means were allegedly used to challenge the Communist Party’s leadership. Judge Alex Lee, presiding over a three-judge panel handpicked by the government to oversee national security cases, acknowledged that the charge was indeed broad—but not, in his view, vague. As reported by the Associated Press, prosecutor Ned Lai countered that “unlawful means” should be understood as actions contrary to the Chinese constitution, which enshrines the Communist Party’s leadership as a defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
After deliberation, the court ruled against Chow. The panel stated it would issue a more detailed opinion in January 2026, but for now, the prosecution will proceed with the trial, which is scheduled to begin on January 22, 2026. Chow reportedly remained calm upon hearing the decision, even managing a smile for supporters in the public gallery before leaving the courtroom.
The court’s decision is not an isolated legal event; it is part of a broader and ongoing campaign against Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement. Since the national security law’s introduction, authorities have prosecuted dozens of activists, politicians, and journalists, dramatically reshaping the city’s once-vibrant civil society. The Tiananmen vigil case, in particular, has attracted international attention, with human rights groups and foreign governments expressing concern over what they see as the erosion of freedoms promised to Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems” framework.
Amnesty International was quick to respond to Monday’s ruling. Fernando Cheung, spokesperson for Amnesty International Hong Kong Overseas, condemned the decision, saying it demonstrated how authorities were “weaponizing the overly broad concept of ‘national security’ to suppress freedom of expression with impunity.” Cheung added, “Commemorating the Tiananmen crackdown should never have been prosecuted,” and called for the release of those detained for what he described as peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The Hong Kong government, for its part, maintains that the national security law was necessary to restore order following the turmoil of 2019. Officials argue that the law has brought stability back to the city and insist that prosecutions are being carried out in accordance with legal standards. This official stance is echoed by prosecutors in the current case, who argue that challenging the Communist Party’s leadership by unlawful means is a legitimate threat to national security, justifying the charges against Chow and her co-defendants.
The legal battle has been marked by twists and turns. In 2023, Chow and two other core members of the Hong Kong Alliance were convicted and sentenced to four and a half months in jail for failing to provide information to authorities investigating the group’s alleged foreign ties. However, in March 2025, the city’s top court overturned those convictions, delivering a rare victory for pro-democracy activists. Despite that momentary reprieve, the national security charges—far more serious and carrying much heavier penalties—have continued to loom large.
As the case grinds forward, the broader landscape in Hong Kong has shifted. Since pandemic-era restrictions on public gatherings were lifted, the park that once hosted the somber candlelight vigil on June 4 has instead been transformed into a carnival space, showcasing Chinese food and products on the anniversary date. The change is symbolic, reflecting the authorities’ efforts to recast the city’s public memory and identity in line with Beijing’s priorities.
The upcoming trial in January 2026 will be closely watched, both in Hong Kong and internationally. For many, it represents a litmus test for the future of civil liberties in the city. Supporters of the defendants argue that the charges are a clear violation of the right to free expression and assembly, rights that were once hallmarks of Hong Kong’s unique status within China. Critics of the pro-democracy movement, however, contend that stability and national security must take precedence, especially after the chaos and violence of 2019.
As the legal process unfolds, Chow Hang-tung and her co-defendants remain at the center of a struggle that is about much more than a single vigil or a single court case. The outcome will help determine not only their personal fates but also the trajectory of Hong Kong’s political future and its relationship with the mainland. For now, the world watches and waits as the city’s courts, its citizens, and its leaders grapple with the meaning of justice, memory, and freedom in a rapidly changing landscape.
With the trial date set and the legal arguments sharpened, the coming months promise to be defining ones for Hong Kong’s embattled pro-democracy movement—and for the city’s place on the global stage.
