Wrong to see interpretation of Basic Law as interference

I have been a member of the National People's Congress Standing Committee Basic Law Committee since 2006, and the recent interpretation of the Basic Law in the Congo 'state immunity' case was my first experience of participating in this important task.

The committee followed the case from the beginning because it directly relates to foreign affairs, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts, according to the Basic Law. One way or another, the courts had to refer it to the central government.

Yet, even after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued three letters through the justice secretary asserting the position of the central government on the issue, the courts sought an interpretation only just before the Court of Final Appeal made its ruling.

Most people were on the whole quite receptive to the idea of an interpretation. Still, there were the routine objections that it might jeopardise the independence of the special administrative region's courts, that state-owned enterprises would hide behind the immunity waiver to escape their liabilities, and that it amounted to interference from the central government.

This is nonsense. The stipulations are simple and clear, and the application for an interpretation was appropriately worded.

Fourteen years after the handover, this was the first time that the city's courts had acknowledged that something was outside their jurisdiction and that there is a higher constitutional body which acts as the ultimate authority in certain areas. The Court of Final Appeal had to act this way; otherwise, the whole judicial system would collapse. Its verdict would either be based on contradictory grounds or simply unenforceable. Whether our dissidents like it or not, this was the only way out.