Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai faces charges, including “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” On Monday, the trial entered its 137th day at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, acting as the High Court, marking Lai’s 45th day of testimony.

The prosecution continued questioning Lai about his op-ed articles. Lai stated that his claim that “the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never respected the One Country, Two Systems principle” was based on his personal experience and was a statement of fact.

Prosecutors also challenged Lai’s assertion that “The National Security Law will not only turn Hong Kong into an ordinary mainland city without freedom and the rule of law but could even make it a Xinjiang-style concentration camp under an atmosphere of terror,” arguing that the claim was baseless. In response, Lai asked the prosecutor, “If you honestly ask yourself, who in Hong Kong can still speak the truth now?”

The judge intervened, prohibiting political statements and instructing Lai to answer the prosecution’s questions directly.

Last Friday, the prosecution presented another op-ed by Lai, which mentioned “top government officials’ disdain for us,” questioning whether this reflected Lai’s personal bias. Lai maintained that it was his assessment of the situation, reiterating that his writings reflected his thoughts and beliefs.

When asked about his statement that “standing up and marching is our final effort,” Lai confirmed that he advocated for public demonstrations against the government to protect their homes. The prosecution questioned whether Lai had disregarded the possibility of constructive dialogue with the government, to which he replied that there had been no such dialogue, asking, “How could I have mentioned it in my article?”

The case is being heard by National Security Law-designated High Court judges Toh, Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee Wan-tang. Representing the prosecution are Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau Tin-hang and Senior Public Prosecutor Crystal Chan Wing-sum. Lai’s defense team includes Senior Counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung, barrister Steven Kwan and New Zealand King’s Counsel Marc Corlett, who is qualified to practice in Hong Kong.

Detailed Transcript

12:47 Court Adjourns

In the afternoon, Jimmy Lai read the articles related to the case in court. The trial is adjourned until Tuesday afternoon (25th) for continuation.

12:20 Lai Says ‘CCP Can Tear Up the Basic Law’; Prosecution Accuses Him of Creating a False Impression

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai about his program Live Chat With Jimmy Lai, stating that it was first broadcast on July 9, 2020, to draw attention to Apple Daily’s English edition. Lai agreed.

The prosecution pointed out that during the program, Lai said, “This means the death knell of Hong Kong definitely,” and also claimed that the National Security Law (NSL) had replaced the Basic Law. The prosecution asked whether Lai had read the NSL by then, to which Lai confirmed he had. The prosecution then challenged him, stating that the NSL did not mention replacing the Basic Law. Lai responded that the law stipulated that in case of any inconsistency between the NSL and the Basic Law, the former would take precedence.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang said, “isn’t the Basic Law local legislation?” Lai replied, “I see, OK.” The prosecution then asked whether Lai had verified the facts before making those statements on his program. Lai admitted he had not.

The prosecution further questioned Lai about his claim in the program that businesspeople had to pay “protection fees,” saying, “Seeking protection from officials means Hong Kong will become as corrupt as China.” The prosecution asked whether the NSL specifically stated that Hong Kong businessmen would need to pay such fees. Lai responded, “Of course not, but if we lose the rule of law, the only protection left is from officials.” He reiterated that with the NSL in place, rule of law no longer existed, and human rights were no longer protected, adding, “This is my experience.”

The prosecution countered that the NSL itself states that it safeguards human rights. Lai replied, “That’s what it says, but I don’t believe it.” The prosecution accused Lai of deliberately creating a false impression that the NSL disregards human rights, which Lai denied. They further asked if he had intentionally misled his audience, which Lai also denied. The prosecution then questioned whether Lai aimed to instill fear of the NSL in the public. Lai responded that he was merely making a prediction.

The prosecution brought up Lai’s statement that “the CCP can tear up the Basic Law,” suggesting that he intended to create the false impression that the NSL or the CCP had in fact “torn up the Basic Law.” Lai denied having such an intention, reiterating that his statement was based on reports.

The prosecution accused Lai of using his program to incite hatred against the Hong Kong and central governments, encourage people to seek unlawful means to change Hong Kong’s legally established framework, and promote lawlessness. Lai dismissed the accusations, saying, “You keep repeating the same question.”

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios reminded Lai that Judge Esther Toh had already warned him once and that she was now reminding him again. She instructed him to directly answer “agree” or “disagree” without giving lengthy responses, asking, “Do you understand?” Lai remained silent.

The prosecution repeated, “Do you understand?” but received no response from Lai. They asked again, “Mr. Lai, do you understand what the judge means?” Lai stayed silent. Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked, “Do you understand or not?” Lai finally replied that he understood.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had incited violence through his articles. Lai disagreed, responding, “Where is the violence?”

11:15 Lai Confirms He Stopped Advocating Sanctions After the National Security Law Came into Effect as It Became Illegal

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column Time is a Weapon, published on July 19, 2020, in which he wrote, “The National Security Law has triggered unprecedented international backlash, and in the end, international sanctions will surpass those imposed after June Fourth.” The prosecution questioned whether such an event had occurred at the time. Lai responded that it was the result of foreign governments’ opposition to the law and admitted that his statement about international sanctions surpassing those after June Fourth was a prediction.

The prosecution pressed further, asking if Lai was forecasting what would happen. Lai clarified that he was making a prediction. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang followed up, asking whether Lai was indeed predicting future events. Lai confirmed. The prosecution then argued that Lai wanted these events to occur and was conveying this to the public. Lai denied this, stating that he was merely expressing his forecast in the article.

The prosecution cited another passage in the article: “I do not believe that businesspeople will continue to cling to this place without the protection of the rule of law, nor do I believe that Hong Kong can retain its status as an international financial center. I also do not believe that the United States and other Western countries will ease their sanctions on the Chinese Communist Party.” The prosecution asked whether Lai believed the National Security Law would strip Hong Kong of its rule of law. Lai confirmed, agreeing that it was his personal opinion.

The prosecution then challenged whether Lai had factual evidence to support his claim. Lai responded that he did, explaining that the National Security Law could supersede the Basic Law, pointing out that the law stipulated that, in cases of conflict between the two, the National Security Law would prevail. The prosecution asserted that this was merely Lai’s opinion. Lai agreed. When asked whether the statement was a prediction, Lai reiterated that Hong Kong had already lost its status as an international financial hub. The prosecution pressed him on whether he meant Hong Kong’s status at the time he wrote the article. Lai confirmed that he had been making a prediction at that time.

Regarding the statement “I also do not believe that the United States and other Western countries will ease their sanctions on the CCP,” the prosecution questioned whether Lai wanted this to happen. Lai denied it, stating that he never said such a thing. The prosecution countered, arguing that Lai had consistently advocated for sanctions against the central government in response to the National Security Law. Lai replied that such events occurred in response to the law.

Judge Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios asked whether, after the National Security Law came into effect, Lai no longer wanted sanctions. Lai agreed, stating that the law had changed his behavior. She further inquired whether Lai had stopped advocating for sanctions after the law was enacted. Lai confirmed, explaining that it had since become illegal. Judge D’Almada Remedios then asked whether Lai had been aware that sanctions would be imposed and that they were a direct result of his calls for action. Lai denied this. The prosecution followed up, reminding Lai that he had previously testified that, even after the National Security Law was implemented, he still hoped to weaken its effect. Lai clarified that this was merely his personal wish, believing that the CCP did not want to destroy Hong Kong but only sought to control it.

The article also contained the statement, “I further do not believe that the CCP will ultimately refrain from mass arrests and further crackdowns in Hong Kong, but that will be in a year or two. Hopefully, by then, Xi Jinping will have lost power, and the CCP will return to the right track of openness.” Lai explained that he was making a prediction that people would be arrested as a result.

The prosecution accused Lai of using his article to incite dissatisfaction with the central and Hong Kong governments, encourage Hong Kong residents to change the legal system through unlawful means, call for foreign sanctions against officials from China and Hong Kong, and promote violence and lawlessness. Lai denied all accusations.

11:00 Lai Argues with Judge, Insists He Must Explain for a Complete Answer

The prosecution presented another column by Jimmy Lai, published on July 12, 2020, titled From Desolation to Prosperity, Then Falling Off the Feudal Cliff. The article included the statement: “Teresa Cheng said that the police can arrest people based on reasonable suspicion. This means that the police do not need evidence—only their imagination to make arrests and shut people down. The more vague and broad the law is, the more helpless you will be.” The prosecution asked whether Lai had previously admitted under direct examination that this statement was based on his ignorance and misinformation. Lai agreed.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai had verified the facts before making such claims. Lai disagreed, reiterating that it was merely a case of carelessness and ignorance.

The prosecution pointed to another passage in the article: “Deng Zhonghua, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said that the National Security Law is not a one-time legislation. In other words, it is not stringent enough yet, and more repressive laws will follow. Who can guarantee that electronic surveillance will not be used in future to create concentration camps for a million people? Xinjiang is just around the corner!” The prosecution asked whether this was a baseless assumption. Lai responded that it was based on details of the National Security Law. When asked whether it was merely his imagination, Lai disagreed.

The article continued: “Apart from fear, Hong Kong also has to worry about its livelihood. It is not just about being an obedient subject and expecting life and work to continue as usual. The business environment in Hong Kong has changed after the implementation of the National Security Law. Our quality of life and job opportunities will also change. The law has destroyed Hong Kong’s rule of law—businesses will no longer have legal protection. Without legal protection, trust in the financial market collapses, and without trust, billions of dollars in transactions cease in an instant. Hong Kong’s position in international financial trade is doomed, capital will flee, and commercial investment will disappear altogether.”

Lai reiterated that these were his predictions, and they had since come true. The prosecution accused him of inciting fear. Lai denied the claim, arguing that Hong Kong had already lost its status as a financial hub. The prosecution countered, “But it still exists.” Lai responded, “No, it does not.” The prosecution pressed further, asking whether Hong Kong still had its financial hub status at the time the article was written. Lai replied, “I believe we did not; we no longer hold that position.”

Judge Esther Toh intervened, asking Lai directly whether, at the time he wrote the article, Hong Kong still held its financial hub status. Lai insisted, “But my prediction has come true.” Toh dismissed the response, saying, “That is not the point. When you wrote that article, you were making a prediction. Your prediction had no factual basis. Isn’t that correct?” Lai countered, “I had my reasoning, which is why I say it has now come true.”

Toh sternly warned Lai: “You must answer the question put to you and refrain from making political statements.” Lai asked, “Can I explain?” to which Toh snapped, “No!” The exchange escalated as both spoke over each other. Lai insisted, “If I cannot explain, my answer will be incomplete.” Toh cut him off sharply, “No! No! No one is asking for an explanation. You just need to answer the question!”

The prosecution alleged that Lai was attempting to shape a narrative based on his personal views to incite fear, manipulate public sentiment against the central and Hong Kong governments, and stir dissatisfaction among the people. Lai denied all accusations.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang raised a philosophical question: “I don’t know if this is a philosophical issue, but if someone sincerely believes in a feeling, how can it be called fabrication?” He elaborated, “He would not consider himself to be fabricating because he had that perception.” The prosecution clarified its stance, stating that Lai was “fabricating based on speculation.”

10:48 Prosecution Accuses Lai of Spreading False Information About the Death Penalty, Questions If He Can Stop Lying

The prosecution presented another column by Jimmy Lai, published on July 5, 2020, titled Fly High, the Backbone of Conscience Holds Strong, and asked whether Lai had read the text of the National Security Law (NSL) at the time. Lai confirmed that he had. The article stated: “Some people say, leave quickly—colluding with foreign forces is treason, which can mean the death penalty! I said, I won’t leave. If it comes to that, I will face it. If I flee, how can I still call myself a man?”

The prosecution asked whether colluding with foreign forces under the NSL carried the death penalty. Lai responded that he was not stating the law said so, but rather that someone had told him it could. The prosecution then asked whether Lai knew at the time that this was not true. Lai explained that the person who told him this was implying he might be taken to China. The prosecution pressed him multiple times, asking whether it was untrue. Lai eventually admitted that, according to the NSL text, it was not true.

The prosecution pointed out that Lai knowingly wrote “colluding with foreign forces is treason, which can mean the death penalty” despite knowing it was false. “It seems the truth has no bearing on you, Mr. Lai?” the prosecutor asked. Lai responded, “The truth does bear on me—I am saying that somebody told me so.”

The prosecution accused Lai of spreading false news and instilling fear in his readers. Lai denied this. The prosecution then asserted that Lai knowingly published false information despite knowing it was untrue. Lai reiterated that he was simply recounting what someone had told him, rather than stating the NSL’s actual content. The prosecutor pressed further: “Colluding with foreign forces is explicitly covered under the NSL. Mr. Lai, can you stop lying?” Lai responded, “I did not lie.”

The prosecution alleged that Lai’s article incited dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong government, encouraged residents to seek unlawful means to alter legally established policies, and fostered hatred or hostility among different social groups in the city. Lai denied all accusations.

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang questioned what the prosecution meant by “different social groups.” The prosecutor explained that it referred to pro-establishment and opposition factions. Lee emphasized the need for clarity, stating that having different political views does not equate to belonging to different social classes; rather, they are simply distinct groups. He further explained that social class generally refers to upper-class, middle-class, or grassroots communities, which is how the term is typically understood.

10:30 Lai Agrees to Expressing Personal Feelings in Articles but Denies Persuading Readers

Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang noted that Jimmy Lai’s article mentioned the reactions of several countries—including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and Canada—toward the National Security Law (NSL). He asked whether Lai followed international responses to events in Hong Kong, to which Lai agreed. Lee further inquired whether Lai was aware of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) at the time. Lai responded that he had not paid attention to it.

The prosecution then asked whether Lai actively followed foreign governments’ actions regarding the NSL. Lai stated that he paid attention to measures that were beneficial to Hong Kong citizens. When asked if he agreed with those measures, Lai said he did.

The prosecution cited a passage from Lai’s article: “The CCP, shamelessly and brazenly, continues to spread lies despite the watchful eyes of Hong Kongers and the world. Facing such a shameless and untrustworthy regime, how can one adapt? Apart from leaving, what choice do Hong Kongers have?” The prosecution asked whether Lai was projecting his personal feelings onto Hong Kongers. Lai responded that, although large corporations outwardly supported the NSL, they were actually withdrawing from Hong Kong, which he claimed was a fact.

Lai further stated that the Hong Kong government used corporate support for the NSL as a symbol of peace. “I think this is wrong and shameless,” he said, adding that companies had, in reality, divested. The prosecution pointed out that Lai was not accusing businessmen of being shameless, but rather the government. Lai clarified that he was referring to the government’s use of corporate support to justify the NSL.

The prosecution asked whether Lai believed the government was shameless, to which he agreed. The prosecution then suggested that Lai intended to undermine public confidence in the government. Lai responded that he was merely expressing his feelings. When asked whether he wanted to convey his personal sentiments to readers, Lai said, “I was just sharing my feelings in the article.” The prosecution then asked whether Lai wrote to persuade readers, which Lai denied.

The prosecution also cited another part of the article, which referenced a criminal intimidation case involving a journalist from Oriental Daily: “Even before the National Security Law arrives, there are already signs of judicial interference.” The article noted that Lai could have applied for permission to leave Hong Kong, but the lead prosecutor advised the judge against it, and the judge agreed. “It’s no surprise—who would take political risks in the storm of the National Security Law?” the article stated.

The prosecution asked what basis Lai had for this claim. Lai responded, “The so-called criminal charge was fabricated by the journalist. I was merely reprimanding him.” He further argued that it was “remarkable” that he was denied the ability to travel for such a minor case. The prosecution pointed out that his case was unrelated to the NSL. Lai countered that, with the NSL’s imminent enactment, political considerations made it difficult for him to find legal representation. When asked whether this was speculation, Lai agreed.

The prosecution then referred to another passage in the article: “Didn’t our Secretary for Justice, Teresa Cheng, firmly state that the NSL would not have retroactive effect? Isn’t that a complete lie?” The prosecution asked why Lai accused Cheng of lying. Lai said he could not remember. The prosecution pointed out that the NSL had not yet taken effect at the time, meaning Lai had no basis to claim it had retroactive application. Lai agreed that he had no foundation for that claim.

The prosecution asserted that Lai used his articles to manipulate public sentiment regarding the NSL, incite dissatisfaction toward the central and Hong Kong governments, encourage citizens to seek unlawful means to alter Hong Kong’s legal framework, and fuel hatred or hostility among different social groups in Hong Kong. Lai denied all allegations. When asked if he used his articles to express his personal views to readers, Lai said that he did.

10:20 Lai Challenges Prosecutor; Judge Warns Against Political Statements

The prosecution questioned Jimmy Lai regarding a passage in his column, which stated, “The National Security Law will not only turn Hong Kong into an ordinary mainland city without freedom and the rule of law but could even make it a Xinjiang-style concentration camp under an atmosphere of terror.” The prosecution challenged Lai, asking whether this claim had any factual basis. Lai responded with a rhetorical question, “If you honestly ask yourself, who in Hong Kong can still speak the truth?”

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping immediately interjected, stating, “That is not a question! Mr. Lai, I do not allow political statements. Answer the question!” Lai defended himself, saying, “I am not making a political statement.” The prosecution reiterated its question, asking whether the claim had any basis. Lai replied, “You can say that.” When the prosecution asked if the statement was merely based on Lai’s personal feelings, he responded that it was based on information he had received, adding, “Unfortunately, it has all come true.”

Judge Toh Lye-ping intervened again, saying, “Look! Here you go again. You are not answering the question. Please control yourself and just respond to the question. Making these statements is pointless because they do not answer the question, and we will not give them any weight.” Lai replied, “OK.”

The prosecution then asked if Lai was trying to incite fear through his article. Lai insisted that he was merely making a prediction, not spreading fear. The prosecution countered that Lai was attempting to stir anti-government sentiment through baseless criticism, which Lai denied, reiterating that it was a prediction. Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang then asked if Lai’s views were based on his personal experience, to which Lai agreed.

The prosecution also pointed to a passage in the article that stated, “The U.S. government should revoke Hong Kong’s special status… The U.K. is compelled to fulfill its responsibility as a former sovereign.” The prosecution asked whether Lai was calling on the U.S. government to revoke Hong Kong’s special status. Lai responded that this had already happened and that he was merely stating a fact. The prosecution then asked if it was Lai’s desire for the U.S. to revoke Hong Kong’s special status, to which he replied, “It was the U.S. government’s decision.” When asked whether he wanted to share this news with his readers, Lai said, “I believe the news is everywhere. I wasn’t trying to share it with them.”

10:10 Prosecution Questions Lai on Statements About “Beijing’s Disregard for One Country, Two Systems” and “Comprehensive Terror-Like Suppression”

The prosecution presented Jimmy Lai’s column Hongkongers Struggling to Breathe: Flee or Resist, published on June 14, 2020. The article stated, “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never tried to understand why millions of people took to the streets to protest, especially the young people who wrote their wills and were willing to sacrifice their lives…”

The prosecution asked Lai who he meant by “young people.” Lai responded that he was referring to the valiant faction, explaining that he had learned about this through newspaper reports. When asked which newspaper, Lai said it was Apple Daily, stating that young people had sacrificed themselves to save Hong Kong. The prosecution then asked whether Lai had verified these claims, to which he replied that he trusted the newspaper to fact-check information before publication.

The prosecution pointed out that during direct examination, Lai had testified that Apple Daily had once misled him regarding police powers to arrest individuals based on “reasonable suspicion.” When asked if he recalled this, Lai said he did not. The prosecution then noted that during a particular protest, Apple Daily had attributed certain remarks to him that he had not actually made. Lai dismissed this as an exception, reiterating that, in general, journalists would fact-check their reports before publication.

When asked whether he fact-checked information before publishing his own articles, Lai admitted that he did not. The prosecution asked whether he solely relied on news reports. Lai confirmed this.

The prosecution then questioned a passage in Lai’s article stating, “The CCP has never respected the One Country, Two Systems framework set out in the Basic Law.” The prosecution asked whether this statement was based on Lai’s personal feelings. Lai responded, “I am stating facts based on my experience.” When asked to elaborate, Lai cited the example mentioned in his article—when then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa attempted to introduce legislation under Article 23 in 2003, which, according to Lai, contradicted the promised democratic system.

Referring to another passage from the article, in which Lai wrote, “The National Security Law is a heavy-handed response from Emperor Xi, who could no longer tolerate dissent. It is accompanied by coercion, intimidation, and purges to achieve comprehensive terror-like suppression, stifling our will to resist and stripping us of our freedoms and the rule of law,” the prosecution asked what Lai meant by “coercion” and “intimidation.” Lai responded that, following the enactment of the National Security Law, the contents of his article had come true.

The prosecution pointed out that at the time the article was published, the National Security Law had not yet been implemented and questioned Lai on what basis he had predicted this outcome. Lai replied, “This was my prediction. I wrote based on what I was hearing at the time. Unfortunately, what I described has now happened.” When asked what he had heard, Lai said he could not remember but reiterated that his words had become reality.

Finally, the prosecution asked what Lai meant by “comprehensive terror-like suppression.” Lai clarified that he was not referring to “terrorists” but rather meant that the situation was “awful.”

10:04 Jimmy Lai Voluntarily Provides Additional Testimony on Slack Messages

The prosecution continued questioning Jimmy Lai regarding his column Success and Failure With a Laugh. Before the prosecution could proceed, Lai voluntarily requested to supplement his testimony regarding the Apple Daily work platform Slack records.

In response to the prosecution’s claim that certain Slack channels had no recorded messages for ten months, Lai had previously stated he could not recall whether “Lunchbox Meetings” were held during that period. On Monday, Lai explained that when Slack was first introduced, Apple Daily employees, including himself, were not very familiar with its operation. As a result, they sometimes switched to WhatsApp to share information until they became more accustomed to using Slack. He further stated that if messages had indeed been deleted from Slack, there would be a visible “message deleted” notification, but no such indications were present in the records.

Judge Lee Wan-tang asked whether Lai was suggesting that Slack did not contain all messages related to “Lunchbox Meetings” and that some could instead be found on WhatsApp. Lai agreed. The prosecution stated that if the defense wished to follow up on this aspect of the testimony, they could address it later.

10:02 Court in Session

The Witness