Document: Amicus Curiae Brief by Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (香港法治行動 HKROLIN)

Filed To: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong SAR

📅 Date of Filing: 27 October 2025

[Download Full Amicus Brief (PDF)]

Executive Summary

(1) On 27 October 2025, the Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (HKROLIN) submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Court of Final Appeal regarding the Government’s compliance with the remedial order issued in Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice [2023] HKCFA 28; [2023] HKCFA 31.

(2) In its principal judgment, the Court held that the absence of a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships violated the right to privacy under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. In its Supplemental Judgment, the Court granted a two-year suspended declaration—expiring 27 October 2025—requiring the Government to establish such a framework “as expeditiously as practicable” and, if necessary, justify any extension with “compelling reasons.”

(3) HKROLIN’s submission notes that the Government introduced the Registration of Same-Sex Partnerships Bill in July 2025—twenty-one months into the twenty-four-month suspension period—after the Legislative Council (LegCo) had signalled strong opposition by passing a February 2025 motion advocating “one-man-one-woman marriage.”

(4) At the LegCo Panel on Constitutional Affairs meeting in July 2025, Members across parties criticised the Government’s “hasty submission” without consultation. Hon Junius Ho Kwan-yiu rebuked:

• “What has the Bureau actually done over the past year and a half? … There has been no real action. … Now, at the close of this term, the Government rushes in panic—its conduct is unseemly. … If the proposal is rejected, the authorities will then say their legal duty remains unfulfilled.”

(5) In addition to this LegCo record, the submission includes HKROLIN’s correspondence with the Executive and Judiciary documenting the absence of remedial action following the Bill’s defeat and, indeed, the lack of institutional commitment to timely legislation (Exhibits A–D, appended to Full Brief).

(6) As the Supplemental Judgment prescribed no formal monitoring mechanism, the Court now bears responsibility to assess whether “expeditious endeavour” has been exercised. To fill this institutional gap, HKROLIN provides independent assistance as an impartial amicus curiae—a role recognised in prior Court of Final Appeal precedents—by offering verified records and constitutional analysis.

(7) HKROLIN’s arguments address six principal issues:

• A. Government Procrastination — The twenty-one-month delay in introducing the Bill reflects lack of due diligence.
• B. Foreseeable Opposition — Failure to conduct public consultation or legislative engagement to counter predictable “traditional family values” rhetoric already ruled unconstitutional.
• C. Limits of Deference — The Executive’s declared “respect” for **unconstitutional LegCo obstruction—based on reasoning already held incompatible with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights in the Sham Tsz Kit judgment—**cannot excuse non-compliance with a binding court order.
• D. Chief Executive’s Constitutional Duty — Articles 48(1)–(2), 50, and 52 of the Basic Law impose an obligation to act when legislative obstruction prevents passage of an important bill.
• E. Symmetry with the “Hong Kong 47” Case — The Government’s past prosecution of coordinated veto plans as “subversion” under NSL 22(3) precludes tolerance of actual obstruction in this context.
• F. Expeditious Benchmark — The past rapid passage of Article 23 legislation demonstrates that legislative speed depends on political will, not logistical constraint.

(8) The brief also notes that unjustifiable non-compliance by the Executive and Legislature may entail potential legal consequences, including:

• Contempt of Court — Defying a binding judgment.
• Misconduct in Public Office — Neglecting constitutional duties causing serious public harm (as in the 2019 Tsang Yam-kuen case).
• Conspiracy to Commit Subversion — Where coordinated obstruction by LegCo parallels acts charged in the “Hong Kong 47” trial.

(9) HKROLIN respectfully invites the Court to:

• Grant leave for the brief to be considered by the full Court of Final Appeal.
  
• Direct the Government to produce a verified compliance record of actions taken under Basic Law Articles 48(1)–(2), 50, and 52.
  
• Declare that any extension of the suspended declaration must strictly meet the standards of “expeditious endeavour” and “compelling reasons.”
  

(10) Consistent with its mandate of public education and transparency in rule-of-law matters, HKROLIN will make its research, submissions, and subsequent procedural developments publicly accessible to promote accountability and public confidence in the administration of justice.