Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Chow Hang-tung appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts Building today (22 Jan. 2026) to stand trial for inciting subversion under the Beijing-imposed national security law, after the proceedings were twice delayed since last year. Lee, 68, and Chow, 40, pleaded not guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years behind bars. Ho, 74, pleaded guilty. The trial is expected to last around 75 days.
Lee and Chow have been in custody for over 1,500 days since their arrests in 2021, while Ho has been detained for over 1,300 days.
Before proceedings, prison vehicles arrived at the court, and police maintained a heavy presence outside. Observers included representatives from the United States, Europe, and other consulates, alongside former pro-democracy politicians and civil society figures, such as former district councillor Katrina Chan, ex-Alliance Standing Committee member Lau Ka-yee, former Democratic Party chair Emily Lau, former HKCTU vice-chair Leo Tang, and activist Tsang Kin-sang.
A citizen queuing to attend said: “Those who have stood by the candlelight vigils over the years want to be here, to see the trial through, and witness how the court judges Hong Kongers’ three-decade-long remembrance of June 4.”
The defendants, the dissolved HK Alliance, former chair Lee Cheuk-yan, and former vice-chairpersons Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung face charges of inciting others to subvert state power between 1 July 2020 and 8 September 2021. The case, first indicted in September 2021, has been repeatedly delayed, with the defendants held in custody for 1,400 to 1,600 days.
In court, Lee appeared in good spirits, waving to supporters, while Chow, wearing a ponytail, took a deep bow, saying in Cantonese: “Thank you for braving the cold through the night.” and vowed not to cut her hair until the trial ends. Ho remained calm throughout.
The prosecution highlighted that since its founding in 1989, the Alliance has included “ending one-party rule” among its five core objectives. After the National Security Law took effect, continuing to advocate this principle constitutes incitement to subvert state power. They argued that the Alliance’s promotion of ending one-party rule was understood as challenging Communist Party leadership, which violates China’s Constitution.
Prosecutors added that the defendants, invoking democratic ideals and the memory of June 4, aimed to stir public discontent and amplify the incitement.
Yet tens of thousands of Hongkongers have independently attended the annual Victoria Park candlelight vigil for over three decades. Could they really have been “incited” solely by the Alliance? Advocating for democratic governance and ending one-party rule aligns with civil liberties recognised in democratic societies. As Ho Chun-yan noted in court: “Ending one-party rule does not mean eliminating the Communist Party. The Party retains the right to participate and, through fair elections, may continue in power.” Such a principle would alarm no one but an authoritarian regime.