Three government-vetted judges are due to deliver a verdict at 10 a.m. Friday in the national security case against Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung.
Prosecutors say the pair incited subversion by promoting the Hong Kong Alliance’s call to end one-party rule; both pleaded not guilty and said the slogan sought democracy, not the overthrow of China’s Communist Party.
Up to 10 years in prison is at stake if they are convicted, while co-defendant Albert Ho already pleaded guilty and could seek a reduced sentence.
The case centers on the now-disbanded group that organized Hong Kong’s annual June 4 Tiananmen vigil for three decades before the event was banned in 2020 and the security law reshaped the city’s political landscape.
For critics, the trial has become a test of how far Hong Kong’s courts now mirror mainland China’s use of subversion charges against dissent.
How will the conviction of these vigil organizers reshape the future of historical remembrance and free speech in Hong Kong?
What hidden legal precedents will the impending full judgment set for anyone daring to publicly question unchecked state power?
341 Arrests, 167 Convictions: The 2026 Crackdown on Hong Kong’s Tiananmen Vigil Organizers and Its Global Fallout
Overview
After Beijing imposed the National Security Law in Hong Kong in 2020, authorities banned the annual Tiananmen vigils, prosecuted activists who defied the ban, and launched sweeping national security investigations. This crackdown led to the disbanding of the Hong Kong Alliance and dozens of other civil society groups, as well as the removal of public memorials. In August 2026, key activists were convicted of inciting subversion, sparking international condemnation. The rapid passage of new security laws and electoral changes further silenced opposition, triggered a mass exodus, and damaged Hong Kong’s global reputation as a free and open city.