Editor’s note: Jimmy Lai is facing charges under the National Security Law for “conspiracy to publish seditious publications” and “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” The trial will resume on Thursday, August 14, for closing arguments by both the prosecution and the defense. Prosecutors allege that Lai conspired with senior executives at Apple Daily to publish 161 seditious articles intended to incite hatred toward the central or Hong Kong governments, and that Lai is a “radical political figure” who sought foreign sanctions. Lai denied each allegation when testifying.

Over the past 146 days of the trial, The Witness has compiled summaries of the prosecution’s three-day opening statement, key testimony from six prosecution witnesses, and highlights from Lai’s 52 days on the stand, divided into two parts: Apple Daily editorial and reporting, and international connections. This court report offers another perspective on the courtroom scene, revisiting key moments of the trial.

---

On November 20, 2024, nearly a year after the trial began, and following the testimony of six prosecution witnesses—including senior Apple Daily executives Cheung Kim-hung and Chan Pui-man, and Andy Li of SWHK (Fight For Freedom. Stand With Hong Kong)—the case entered its 93rd day of hearings.

“We are ready for the next stage,” said senior defense counsel Robert Pang Yiu-hung as he rose to address the three judges.

In the public gallery and press seats, the room fell silent. Wearing a white shirt, green sweater, and brown suit jacket, Jimmy Lai appeared in good spirits, donning his glasses as he stepped out of the dock under the escort of three correctional officers and approached the witness stand, where an interpreter sat nearby.

Holding a Bible in his left hand, Lai took the oath in English in the Catholic tradition—his first time speaking publicly since being remanded in custody in December 2020, nearly four years earlier. Over the following days, he would address, one by one, the charges of publishing seditious publications through Apple Daily and colluding with foreign forces.

His 52 days of testimony stretched from winter into spring, spanning his birthday, Christmas, the Lunar New Year’s “Human Day,” and New Year’s Day. On each special occasion, supporters in the public gallery would greet him before proceedings began. Considerably thinner than before, Lai would turn to the gallery with a smile, his eyes narrowing into slits, blowing kisses and waving to family members.

In contrast to his warm and relaxed demeanor before court began, Lai was notably serious and sat upright while testifying, answering entirely in English. During questioning by the defense, he spoke in a calm and measured tone. But under cross-examination by the prosecution, the atmosphere turned tense, often leading to sharp verbal exchanges. When displeased with a prosecutor’s accusations, Lai sometimes responded with sarcasm or rhetorical questions.

The three judges also posed questions from time to time. On occasions when they challenged him, Lai sometimes pushed back, accusing them of misinterpreting his words. The judges clearly disagreed, issuing repeated warnings and rebuttals, with their exchanges occasionally overlapping.

To revisit Lai’s testimony, one must return to the beginning—back to 1989.

The original intent of running a newspaper

Before beginning his questions, defense counsel Steven Kwan Man-wai noted to the court that Lai was advanced in age and requested a 15-minute break midway through proceedings, also reminding Lai to speak up.

Kwan gave a brief outline of Lai’s early career: In the 1980s, Lai founded the clothing brand Giordano, sold it in 1989, launched Next Magazine the following year, and founded Apple Daily in 1995.

Lai said that the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown marked his first involvement in politics and made him realize that running a newspaper was an opportunity to spread the message of freedom: “Because the more information you have, the more you know, the freer you are.”

More than 30 years later, Lai was arrested under the National Security Law. After being released on bail, he told an interviewer, “In the future, if I end up lying in prison—whatever—I would still choose this path.”

Kwan asked him what “this path” meant. Lai replied that it was the path he had taken, Apple Daily’s path, and the path of his involvement in the pro-freedom movement.

Kwan followed up: Were you referring to the path taken after Apple Daily was founded in 1995?

“It was the path after the June 4 incident,” Lai answered.

“I don’t want Hong Kong independence.”

From Next Magazine to Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai described the move as a natural expansion, saying Apple Daily’s core values included the rule of law, democracy, and freedoms of speech and assembly—values he said were also core to the people of Hong Kong.

In court, defense counsel Steven Kwan Man-wai displayed Apple Daily’s inaugural editorial, We Belong to Hong Kong:

“In today’s world of transparent information, the power of people choosing freedom is stronger than any other force. As long as readers choose us, support our reporting, and agree with our stance, then no matter how great the pressure, we will surely be able to stand tall…

We firmly believe that Hongkongers, used to freedom, will never silently endure unreasonable restrictions or unfair treatment, because Hongkongers are born with a passionate pursuit of freedom.”

Lai leaned forward to read the text on the computer screen and quickly confirmed that he wrote it, saying it represented Apple Daily’s principles, and was the only editorial he ever penned for the paper.

Lai stressed that Apple Daily had no editorial policy promoting any form of violence, and it opposed advocating Hong Kong independence, forbidding staff from mentioning it.

“Advocating independence is a kind of conspiracy, because people just want to lure us into a trap. It was never a reality. The idea is too—crazy.”

The defense cited multiple instances where Lai had publicly opposed independence.

For example, in a May 11, 2020 interview on Taiwan’s Yahoo TV Netizens’ Ambush program, Lai said via video call: “I have always opposed independence… Nobody is foolish enough to want independence. What we want is not independence; what we want are the rights in our Basic Law.”

Kwan also cited a tweet from Lai: “Our young people are the backbone of our movement for freedom. They are in the most dangerous situation.” Asked what “freedom movement” meant, Lai said it referred to the protests and activism young people were engaged in.

Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by “freedom.” Lai said: “Freedom from China’s encroachment—freedom from dictatorship.” Toh asked: “You mean freedom from mainland China?” Lai agreed.

“So you want independence?” Toh pressed. Lai clarified: “I don’t want independence. I want Hong Kong to have the rule of law… freedom under the rule of law.”

Lai said he is not a politician and has no political agenda, adding that Apple Daily readers were Hongkongers who upheld core values and were not easily influenced.

“Do you intend to poison the minds of Hong Kong readers?” Kwan asked, citing prosecution allegations.

“I don’t think I have the power to poison or erode the thinking of Hongkongers just through my articles,” Lai replied.

“Because I’m the boss”

In the eyes of Apple Daily staff, Lai seemed to have the final say.

Former Next Digital CEO Cheung Kim-hung testified that one could not “say no to the boss.” Former associate publisher Chan Pui-man described Lai as forceful and decisive. Former chief editorial writer and op-ed page editor Yeung Ching-kee likened Apple Daily’s editorial independence to a “birdcage,” with Lai setting the basic stance—like the cage—and staff unable to go beyond it.

Lai admitted he had a strong personality, but said his management style did not force others and that he strictly respected editorial independence. He believed Yeung’s “birdcage” remark referred to the general reality in media that journalists worked within a publication’s stance and values.

However, Lai admitted to issuing editorial instructions on three occasions:

March 2019: When former Chief Secretary Anson Chan met then U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Lai told Cheung to give the story “maximum impact,” calling it an important meeting. The report ran on the front page.

July 2019 LegCo storming: Lai messaged Chan Pui-man, suggesting, “Should we focus tomorrow on the voices of the young people… make it as big as possible to win sympathy for them?” He explained in court that he wanted the public to understand the protesters so as not to harm the movement.

May 2020—before the National Security Law: Lai told Cheung to launch the “One Hongkonger One Letter to Save Hong Kong” campaign, believing every possible step was needed to stop the law’s enactment. Cheung, Chan, and Democratic Party founding chair Martin Lee opposed it. Chan forwarded a Facebook post by then–Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong, calling the idea “awkward and corny” and saying there was “no reason to ask the president of another country to ‘Save HK.’” Lai replied: “This is an emergency. We can’t pretend to be cautious and clever. The only way is to be brave…”
When Kwan asked why the campaign went ahead despite opposition, Lai answered: “Because I’m the boss.”

On Apple Daily’s English edition, Lai was also firm.

In May 2020, after the English edition launched, Lai sent a report titled “Republicans Say Biden Good for Iran and ISIS, Very Good for China” to executive editor Fung Wai-kong, asking: “Lo Fung [Fung’s pen name], do we need news like this that has nothing to do with China and is carried by every big English paper?”

Fung replied he was trying to include some international news because the readership was global and might want to follow major world events, especially the U.S. election.

Lai responded: “I think we should focus on China news and not dilute it.” Fung agreed, replying: “OK, from today, we’ll stop covering international news.”

Lai said in court that his intent in creating the English edition was to break the South China Morning Post monopoly, and with limited resources, the focus should not be diluted. He described this as a business principle, not an editorial order.

“You don’t seem to care about the truth.”

Throughout his testimony, Lai often looked down at the screen to review materials, including 33 alleged seditious Succession or Laughter columns, transcripts of “Live Chat” episodes, and emails. Sometimes he spent tens of minutes reading an entire piece before looking up to tell his lawyer, “Finished.”

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang alleged that the content lacked factual basis, advocated sanctions, and incited hatred and violence. Lai sometimes flatly denied this, sometimes challenged the prosecutor, and occasionally made critical remarks—prompting the judges to interrupt and admonish him.

In one exchange, Chau showed Lai an email to former U.S. Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane stating: “With increased U.S. military support, people feel more secure living and investing in Taiwan.” Lai explained he was answering a question about emigration, saying that U.S. military protection reassured people, making Taiwan a top migration choice for Hongkongers.

When Chau repeated that Lai wanted U.S. military support for Taiwan, Lai insisted he was merely explaining why people felt safer living there.

A moment later, Lai told Chau: “Mr. Chau, you don’t seem to care about the truth. You’re very creative.” Chau replied: “No, I’m just asking based on the record.”

“You’re very carefree. As a prosecutor, you’re excellent,” Lai said.

Chau asked if Lai had always believed China’s “belligerence” needed to be balanced. Lai responded: “I’m not going to answer words you put into my mouth.” Judge Toh repeated the question, and Lai answered “No.”

In another instance, Chau cited Lai’s column Hongkongers Struggling to Breathe: Flee or Resist, which said: “The National Security Law will not only turn Hong Kong into an ordinary mainland city without freedom or rule of law, but even into a concentration camp shrouded in terror like Xinjiang…”

“Completely unfounded allegations?” Chau asked.

Lai replied: “If you honestly ask yourself, who in Hong Kong can still tell the truth now?”

“That’s not a question!” Judge Toh said. “Mr. Lai, I will not allow any political statements. Answer the question!”

“I’m not making a political statement,” Lai replied.

When Chau repeated the question, Lai said: “You can say that.” Asked if the accusations were based on personal feelings, Lai said: “From the information I heard—and unfortunately, they’ve all come true.”

“You see? There you go again,” Judge Toh said. “You’re not answering the question. Please restrain yourself and answer. These statements are useless because they’re not answers. We will give them no weight.”

The next day, the prosecution showed Lai an article written by another author, saying it sought to incite Hongkongers to use unlawful means to change the current legal system.

“That’s someone else’s article. How would I know what they were thinking? Please tell me, because you’re so clever,” Lai said.

Justice Susana Maria D’Almada Remedios interrupted, saying the prosecution was only asking a question, and told Lai not to make “smart-aleck remarks.” Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang also warned: “You just need to say yes or no. We’ve got over a hundred articles in this case. If you keep answering like this, we’ll still be here next year.” Lai replied: “OK.”

Judge: “You’re not a political prisoner.”

Another exchange came when Kwan cited a November 13, 2020 “Live Chat” episode where Lai said: “We must continue to fight for the rule of law and freedom, but I think we have no space to do so. The National Security Law has completely intimidated people here. We can’t hold any demonstrations.”

Kwan noted that Articles 4 and 5 of the National Security Law protect the rule of law and freedom, and asked if Lai knew this.

“I don’t know how to answer you. If there are political prisoners here, then I don’t believe there is rule of law. I don’t believe there is freedom,” Lai said with a laugh.

Kwan asked if there were political prisoners in mid-November 2020. Lai replied that after the NSL, “I was sure there would be, and I’d already been arrested.”

The term “political prisoner” drew Judge Toh’s ire: “You say you’re a political prisoner—don’t you understand you were arrested on criminal charges? You were not arrested for politics…”

“OK, OK, OK, I understand,” Lai said.

Nearly a month later, the same situation happened again.

The prosecution questioned whether Lai had long known that his columns would be translated into English. Lai replied:

“You have to understand—my articles being translated into English is not a crime. But lying in court is a crime. Do you think I would turn something legal into something illegal, get myself convicted, just to show that I’m not only a political prisoner but also an idiot?”

At that, Justice Esther Toh Lye-ping interjected: “You are not a political prisoner. You are here facing criminal charges.”

Lai responded: “You can have your view, and I can have mine.”

Toh said: “I am emphasizing this point to you.”

Lai replied: “You can suggest it to me, but you can’t force your view on me.”

Toh raised her voice: “I am pointing out the truth to you. This is a criminal court; you have nothing to do with politics… Whether you share the same view or not, this is the fact and the reality. Mr. Lai, you are trying to bring politics into the court. You are not allowed to do that!”

Lai chuckled: “I see, I see.”

The next day, before the prosecution began its questioning, Toh took the initiative to state:

“I want to clarify: the defendant in this case twice referred to himself as a political prisoner. In this court, we will only decide the case based on the evidence we hear and the laws relevant to the charges.

No matter a person’s political inclination, it should be left outside the court. Before the law, everyone is equal. Everyone who comes to court is equal and entitled to a fair trial. That is what I want to say.”

Prosecutor Anthony Chau Tin-hang then asked Lai, “Mr. Lai, do you understand what Justice Toh said?” Lai remained silent. Chau asked again, “You understand, don’t you?” Lai finally replied: “Continue, please.”

“We are Hongkongers.”

Near the end of the prosecution’s cross-examination, another word sparked a heated exchange—“yellow skin.”

The dispute arose from Lai’s earlier remarks in a program:

“Xi Jinping is not eliminating his enemies; he is eliminating the people of Hong Kong. We are not his enemies… We don’t want to build our own country—we already have our own country. We just want to be free people in the country we love, free from dictatorship.”

Lai explained in court that at the time, he meant resisting the National Security Law and resisting dictatorship. His comment about “Xi Jinping eliminating the people of Hong Kong,” he said, referred to silencing dissent—“making us disappear.”

The prosecution challenged this as baseless. Lai responded: “Hong Kong is already finished; there is no voice left,” denying that he was trying to instill fear, make viewers dislike Xi, incite hatred, or encourage lawbreaking.

Justice Esther Toh Lye-ping asked what Lai meant by “dictatorship.” Lai denied that he wanted to “get rid of the Chinese Communist Party” itself.

The prosecution and Toh pressed him repeatedly. Lai maintained that he wanted to rid Hong Kong of dictatorship, and that the CCP was a dictatorship, but “we are Hongkongers—China has nothing to do with us,” explaining, “Only the people of China can rid themselves of the CCP. We are Hongkongers.”

Toh countered: “We are Chinese.”

Lai replied: “We are Hongkongers, because of One Country, Two Systems.”

Toh then asked: “Is your skin yellow?”

Lai replied: “If I have yellow skin, does that make me Chinese?”

Lai reiterated that he was not Chinese, but a Hongkonger. Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang interrupted: “But Mr. Lai, you said before that you do not agree with Hong Kong independence?” Lai confirmed, but added that he supported One Country, Two Systems.

“I got totally confused,” Lee said, though adding there was no need to pursue the matter further.

The next day, Lai volunteered a clarification: he meant that he was not a Mainland Chinese, but a Hong Kong Chinese. “China is my country. I love China, but I do not love the Chinese government.”

After this series of verbal clashes, the defense completed its re-examination on March 6 this year. Steven Kwan Man-wai set down his papers and said: “Unless the court has further questions, that is the epic evidence for Mr. Lai.”

Lai removed his headset at the witness stand, ending his 52 days of testimony. He gave a small wave to the prosecution, defense, and judges, saying, “Thank you,” before taking his water cup and returning to the dock under escort by three correctional officers. Justice Toh returned his gesture with a smile.

The Witness