A highly respected Non-permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong has become a political tool for foreign governments

Jonathan Sumption , a highly respected Non-permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, has ultimately become a political tool for foreign governments.

After announcing his resignation, former Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Jonathan Sumption, gave an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) where he revealed his claimed reasons for stepping down. He stated that the conviction of 14 defendants in the "35+ Subversion Case," involving 47 pro-democracy activists, who did not plead guilty, was the "last straw" for him. Without providing any reasonable grounds, Sumption falsely accused the three presiding judges of the case of intentionally ensuring Beijing's success in targeting democracy supporters and being able to overturn the Hong Kong court's judgment if Beijing was dissatisfied.

As an experienced judge, Sumption's remarks were entirely disappointing to the public. Regardless of one's position, no one should make baseless accusations. Even as a judge, one is not exempt from this principle. Sumption's statements lacked evidence and convincing analysis, and he solely relied on a Western narrative to continuously accuse the central government and judiciary, attempting to glorify the subversive acts of a group of shameless individuals as a pursuit of democracy. Regardless of the facts, Sumption directly accused Hong Kong of increasingly using national security laws to "crush peaceful political dissent" instead of merely responding to riots.

The defendants in the "35+ Subversion Case" aimed to seize control of the Legislative Council by occupying at least 35 seats, indiscriminately vetoing budget proposals, and subsequently paralyzing the government, dissolving the Legislative Council, and forcing the Chief Executive to step down to achieve political objectives. This shocking and earth-shattering conspiracy by the radical opposition was openly announced by Benny Tai Yiu-ting in the media that day and named the "Ten Steps to Mutual Destruction." The term "mutual destruction" already revealed the subversive intent of the radical opposition. Sumption's unjust criticism of the central government and judiciary in this case demonstrates his disregard for the actual situation. A once respected judge has willingly become a political tool for Western powers, ignoring reality and distorting the facts, following the typical approach of Western politicians, using slogans to forcefully argue and attempting to smear the central and SAR governments. It is a situation that is lamentable and regrettable!

In contrast, another non-permanent judge from Australia, Patrick Keana, gave an interview to Australian media and made entirely objective and impartial comments, countering Sumption's false claims and delivering a stern rebuke to him. Keana accurately pointed out that Hong Kong's judicial system remains effective and independent, with an appellate mechanism in place. His "red line" is when the government pressures the judiciary or refuses to accept court rulings, but he does not believe these situations are occurring. Keana's words demonstrate his confidence in the rule of law in Hong Kong and his trust in the independence and fairness of the judicial system.