On Thursday, Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced pro‑democracy activist Joshua Wong to ten years in prison, marking the second conviction under the Beijing‑decreed national security law that has increased the legal pressure on opposition figures in the city. The 30‑year‑old, who has been behind bars since November 2020, was found guilty of conspiring with fellow activists, including exiled Nathan Law, to seek sanctions from foreign governments against Hong Kong and China. The latest verdict adds to Wong’s earlier four‑year, eight‑month sentence for subversion, raising his total imprisonment to nearly fourteen years.
The national security law, introduced in 2020, replaced prior suspensions and expanded the range of permissible offenses. Under the legislation, Wong’s offense carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and earlier he had received a four‑year, eight‑month sentence for a separate subversion case in 2024, a decision that had already set his anticipated release to January 2027. The new conviction, which began in June of the prior year, now prolongs his incarceration well beyond that date.
Central to the second conviction was a series of lobbying activities undertaken by Wong, Law and other activists between July and November 2020, immediately after the law’s enactment. According to the High Court’s findings, they travelled to the United States and Europe and called for sanctions and hostile measures aimed at authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong. The court described the lobbying as an attempt to “adapt roles so that overseas affiliates would call for sanctions, thereby increasing the potential for their execution during the prevailing geopolitical climate.”
Judge William Tam, who presided over the case, said:
"The offense was of a very serious nature, and the defendants did not change their intention but persisted with their conspiracy after the national security law came into force. Their calls for sanctions and adverse measures certainly had the potential of bringing them into existence in the geopolitical climate that was prevailing at the time."
The ten‑year sentence compels Wong to serve additional time beyond the original sentencing schedule, effectively delaying his projected release. While his two‑term conviction compounds the legal burden facing him, the higher sentence also underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing Beijing’s consolidation of power over Hong Kong’s legal and political institutions.
Wong’s participation in Hong Kong’s democratic movements began early. He first emerged as a visible figure during a 2012 protest against the introduction of patriotic national education in schools. He later led the 2014 Umbrella Movement, a mass occupation that saw hundreds of thousands take to the streets. In 2019, Wong joined a broader wave of anti‑government protests that sparked international attention. These actions built a reputation that has made him a symbol for democratic aspirations in the city.
In 2016, Wong co‑founded the political party Demosisto with Law and fellow young activists. The party was officially dissolved on the day the national security law took effect, prompting Law to seek self‑exile in Britain. The dissolution signified the legal untenability for institutions that openly challenged Beijing’s authority and highlighted the erosion of party‑based democratic participation.
Wong’s conviction is part of a wider crackdown that has targeted numerous pro‑democracy figures. The government’s strategy has involved “cloistering them out of the public eye through prolonged detention,” a practice that erodes transparency and reduces the public’s ability to hold officials accountable. Judicial proceedings have been used to silence dissenting voices, constrict the range of political expression, and tighten control over civic space.
The high court’s decision illustrates the increasingly punitive use of the legal system as a tool of state control. By treating civic engagement and the pursuit of foreign sanctions as subversive acts, the judiciary refuses to distinguish between lawful protest and criminal conspiracy. This practice undermines the rule of law and raises concerns for the protection of civil liberties.
At a civic level, the conviction deepens the uncertainty surrounding Hong Kong’s democratic future. Institutional erosion, coupled with a shrinking space for dissenting speech, jeopardizes the electorate’s ability to assess candidates and form a free, informed public opinion. As the judiciary enforcer of Beijing’s policies, the courts’ actions directly influence the balance of power within Hong Kong’s political and legal framework, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable to the repercussions of global geopolitical tensions. This case, therefore, is not merely a criminal judgment but a stark indicator of the shrinking fabric of public accountability in Hong Kong’s civic life.
