Subject: Unconstitutional and Deceptive Nature of the 12 June 2025 National Security Operation

Submitted by: HKROLIN Institute (Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative)

On 12 June 2025, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government announced a national security operation citing alleged violations of Article 29 of the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL). The operation was jointly executed by the Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS) of the Central People’s Government (CPG) and the Hong Kong Police Force’s National Security Department (NSD). What distinguished this action was not its stated target, but the mechanism by which it was carried out: a newly promulgated local regulation—Instrument A305A (“Article 23 Subsidiary Legislation”)—enacted in May 2025 under Instrument A305, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

This complaint demonstrates that A305A—and the coercive enforcement regime it enables—is unconstitutional, ultra vires, and legally-void. Section 3 authorises the OSNS to initiate “measures” to determine whether a case may fall under NSL Article 55—without any evidentiary threshold, judicial scrutiny, or procedural safeguard. Section 2 then requires the Committee for Safeguarding National Security (NSC) to adopt the OSNS’s internal opinion as a binding “decision.” Under Section 112(3) of A305, such decisions are asserted to bind all branches of the HKSAR Government—including the executive, judiciary, legislature, and Department of Justice.

The asserted legal foundation for this arrangement is the 2022 Interpretation issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), which clarified the scope of NSL Articles 14 and 47. But that Interpretation reaffirmed only the internal and non-justiciable nature of NSC decisions under Article 14, with one limited exception: when a court questions whether “national security is involved,” the NSC may issue an evidentiary judgment through a binding certificate by the Chief Executive under Article 47. The HKSAR Government has misrepresented this narrow procedural safeguard as constitutional licence to confer unchecked decision-making power on the NSC and the OSNS.

That misrepresentation is further obscured by the structure of the NSC itself. Under NSL Article 13, the NSC is composed entirely of HKSAR officials—including the Chief Executive, Secretary for Justice, Secretary for Security, and Commissioner of Police. These “double-hatted” officials act simultaneously as local constitutional officers and as subordinates within a centrally directed organ. Through this arrangement, external instructions from the CPG may be internalised and implemented under the guise of local institutional discretion.

The 6.12 operation exposed this structure in action. At the OSNS’s request, the NSD executed searches and compelled the surrender of travel documents under the NSL Article 43 Implementation Rules—statutory powers that require “reasonable suspicion.” But under A305A, the OSNS may initiate such actions solely to “ascertain” whether jurisdiction under Article 55 might apply—without needing any grounds for suspicion. These coercive powers were exercised without lawful basis, enabled by a cascading legal regime designed to circumvent constitutional constraints and insulate Mainland actors from legal review.

The operation and the regulatory regime behind it violate the Basic Law, the NSL, and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (HKBOR). Specifically, they contravene:

• Basic Law Articles 11(1), 16, 19, 22(1), 22(3), 63, 85, and 87(1) – safeguarding autonomy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and due process;
• HKBOR Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 – protecting liberty, security of the person, freedom of movement, privacy, fair hearing, and presumption of innocence;
• NSL Articles 4 and 62 – which guarantee the protection of human rights and assert the NSL’s supremacy over inconsistent local legislation.

By authorising coercive action without satisfying Article 55’s jurisdictional threshold—and by embedding Mainland command power within local institutions—A305A dismantles Hong Kong’s constitutional order under the Basic Law and the Sino–British Joint Declaration, and violates human rights. Worse still, it usurps the NPCSC’s exclusive lawmaking authority under the 2020 “5.28 Decision” and misrepresents the 2022 Interpretation to justify enforcement powers the NPCSC itself never contemplated.

This complaint seeks not procedural reassessment, but structural constitutional redress.

Accordingly, the HKROLIN Institute calls for:

• The immediate repeal of Instrument A305A and Section 112(3) of Instrument A305 as unconstitutional and ultra vires;
• Legal remedies for persons whose rights were infringed by the 6.12 operation;
• Public repudiation of the Government’s misrepresentation of the 2022 NPCSC Interpretation; and
• International scrutiny of the HKSAR’s accelerating erosion of constitutional autonomy and the rule of law under “One Country, Two Systems.”

This complaint has been submitted to the following authorities:

• The Chief Executive of the HKSAR
• The Secretary for Security
• The Commissioner of Police (Attn: National Security Department)
• The Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal
• The United Nations Human Rights Committee

The legal framework created by A305A marks a critical rupture in Hong Kong’s constitutional development. This memorandum is a public call to reject its premises, repeal its authority, and restore constitutional governance under the Basic Law.