A renewed debate over the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong has emerged following the publication of a public letter addressing international criticism of the prosecution of media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai.

The letter responds to growing global attention surrounding Lai’s legal cases and argues that Hong Kong’s judicial system continues to operate according to established legal principles under the city’s constitutional framework.

It states that governance in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is grounded in China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, the territory’s mini-constitution, which together define the legal structure guiding courts and public authorities.

The author of the letter rejects portrayals of Lai as a political figure being targeted for his views, instead asserting that the case concerns alleged criminal conduct.

According to the argument presented, Lai’s actions are considered violations of national security legislation and therefore fall within the normal operation of the law.

The letter further stresses that judicial proceedings in Hong Kong follow established legal procedures, including public trials, access to legal representation and the possibility of appeals.

Lai, a seventy-eight-year-old businessman and founder of the now-closed Apple Daily newspaper, has been at the centre of one of Hong Kong’s most closely watched national security trials.

In February 2026 he was sentenced to twenty years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and related sedition offences under the national security law introduced in 2020. The verdict marked the most severe sentence issued under the legislation to date.

The case has sparked strong reactions internationally.

Several governments and human rights organisations have expressed concern that the prosecution reflects broader restrictions on political activity and media freedom in the territory.

Hong Kong and Chinese authorities have consistently rejected those claims, insisting that the charges relate strictly to national security offences rather than journalistic activity or political expression.

Legal proceedings connected to Lai’s earlier fraud case have also attracted attention.

In late February 2026, Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal overturned previous fraud convictions related to lease arrangements involving office space used by Apple Daily, ruling that prosecutors had not demonstrated fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the appeal represented a rare legal victory for Lai, it did not affect the separate twenty-year national security sentence that keeps him in custody.

Supporters of Hong Kong’s legal system argue that the ongoing proceedings illustrate the continued functioning of the city’s common-law framework, which includes appellate review and published judicial reasoning.

Critics, meanwhile, maintain that the broader political environment surrounding the national security law has fundamentally altered the territory’s legal landscape.

As these opposing interpretations continue to shape international debate, the case of Jimmy Lai remains a focal point in discussions about Hong Kong’s legal institutions, the boundaries of national security legislation and the future direction of the territory’s rule of law.