'CE remarks imply top court's rulings were wrong' - RTHK
A A A
Temperature Humidity
News Archive Can search within past 12 months

'CE remarks imply top court's rulings were wrong'

2020-09-01 HKT 16:34
Share this story facebook
  • 'CE remarks imply top court's rulings were wrong'
Dennis Kwok talks to RTHK's Violet Wong
Legal sector lawmaker Dennis Kwok on Tuesday described Carrie Lam's comments that Hong Kong has no separation of powers would mean several rulings made by the top court are wrong and called on the Court of Final Appeal to make an authoritative explanation on this.

Speaking to reporters soon after the Chief Executive made the comments, Kwok said the city's courts have reaffirmed the separation-of-power principle during judicial reviews or cases concerning public administration, and if Lam's comments are right, it would mean those judgements made by the top court are all wrong.

“The courts have always referred to and relied on the separation of powers as the fundamental principle when it comes to dealing with all kinds of cases, concerning the rights of Hong Kong residents, the constitutionality of legislation, and the legality of executive decisions,” he said.

“So, for Carrie Lam as Chief Executive to now come out and say that there’s in fact no separation of powers in Hong Kong is a joke," he said. "it’s ludicrous, and it’s an offence to the common sense of the Hong Kong people."

He dismissed Lam's comment that there has been a misunderstanding about what the Basic Law says, and accused the government of changing its stance to please Beijing.

Kwok also cited an article written by Basic Law Committee member Albert Chen in 2018, which said the courts in Hong Kong have stated that the separation of powers is "an important and indispensable constitutional principle embedded in the Basic Law".

He told RTHK's Violet Wong that he hoped the city's judges will stand firm on judicial independence, and that Lam's remarks won't affect how they adjudicate cases.

He said that the Court of Final Appeal should give the latest and the most authoritative explanation when it handles the judicial review against the anti-mask law in November.