Jailed Hong Kong independence activist Edward Leung drops legal challenge over government decision to ban him from running in 2016 Legco election
- Lawyer for former spokesman of localist group Hong Kong Indigenous concedes Leung has little chance of winning
- Leung had argued that returning officer’s decision to stop him taking part in election was unconstitutional
Jailed Hong Kong independence advocate Edward Leung Tin-kei has given up his legal challenge against a government decision to disqualify him from running in the Legislative Council election three years ago.
His lawyer Anson Wong Yu-yat told the High Court on Thursday that Leung’s challenge would likely become “academic” by the time there was a ruling as the next Legco election was in 2020.
He also conceded that the chance of Leung – once the face of the city’s independence movement – winning was slim, as the court had already dealt with the issue raised in a separate case.
Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung accepted the request and allowed Leung to withdraw his election petition.
But the jury cleared him of another riot charge and one of inciting others.
Leung launched his election petition in October 2016 two months after the Electoral Affairs Commission invalidated his candidacy for the New Territories East constituency, on the grounds that he advocated separatism.
Six activists found guilty over role in rally outside liaison office
He questioned whether returning officers had the power to decide or inquire whether he was being genuine in signing a “confirmation form” in which he accepted Hong Kong was an inalienable part of China.
Despite signing, he was excluded from the race, a decision he argued was “unconstitutional” and amounted to “an unreasonable restriction”.
However, in February last year, in an election petition filed by another independence advocate, Andy Chan Ho-tin, who also had his candidacy invalidated, Au concluded returning officers had the power to determine whether one was sincere when he or she signed the declaration form.
But Au ruled that returning officers should believe the candidate, unless there was “cogent, clear, and compelling evidence” to suggest otherwise. They should also give the candidate a chance to respond, he said.
