FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE     04 August 2025  ｜Macao

From: Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (HKROLIN)

To:

Ms. Anitta Hipper, Lead Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Anitta.HIPPER@ec.europa.eu

Mr. Xavier Cifre Quatresols, Press Officer for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, xavier.cifre-quatresols@ec.europa.eu

Cc:

Mr. Sam Hou Fai, Chief Executive, Macao Special Administrative Region, info@gce.gov.mo

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Portugal, geral@mne.pt

Directorate-General for Foreign Policy, Portugal, dirdg@mne.pt

Subject: Urgent EU Action Requested: Unlawful Arrest of Mr. Au Kam San Under Macao’s National Security Law

Dear Ms. Hipper and Mr. Cifre Quatresols,

The Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (HKROLIN) commends the principled statement issued by the European External Action Service (EEAS) on 2 August 2025, condemning the arrest of Mr. Au Kam San—a Portuguese national and former Macao legislator—under Article 13 of the Macao National Security Law (NSL, republished in Boletim Oficial No. 24/2023, Directive No. 79/2023).

Your statement rightly highlights growing threats to political pluralism and freedom of expression in the Macao SAR, and the implications for the Basic Law, the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

We write to call your attention to our open letter of 1 August 2025 addressed to Chief Executive Mr. Sam Hou Fai (click here), which outlines in detail how the charges against Mr. Au rest on vague, extralegal concepts that violate both Basic Law protections and Macao’s international obligations. We respectfully urge the European Union to escalate its response, leveraging its legal and treaty-based standing under the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration to press for compliance and accountability.

Legal Deficiencies in the Charges

On 31 July 2025, Macao’s Judiciary Police (PJ) charged Mr. Au under Article 13 for allegedly colluding with an “anti-China organization” since 2022, providing “false and seditious information,” inciting hatred against the Central People’s Government and Macao SAR, disrupting the 2024 Chief Executive election, and provoking foreign hostile actions (https://www.gov.mo/zh-hant/news/1162983/). These charges are flawed for the following reasons:

1.  1.  Absence of “Unlawful Means” — “Sedition” Is Extralegal
   Article 13(1)(d) penalizes provoking hatred among Macao residents toward the Central People’s Government by unlawful means, likely to cause serious consequences. The PJ’s vague invocation of “false and seditious information” fails to identify any unlawful act. Notably, Article 13(2)(d)(1), which refers to disseminating “false or grossly distorted information,” is not a standalone offense and requires linkage to unlawful means and serious consequences under Article 13(1)(d).

• Macao’s legal system does not recognize sedition as an offense, unlike Hong Kong’s 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.
• The Criminal Code (Decree-Law No. 58/95/M, Articles 132 and 295) requires tangible incitement to specific criminal acts or disorder—standards unmet in this case.
• The term “seditious” is extralegal and incompatible with Macao’s civil law tradition and nullum crimen sine lege.

2. Absolute Protection of Political Opinion

The charges are centered on Mr. Au’s opinions, including criticisms of the Central Government and Macao SAR allegedly expressed to an overseas group. Under ICCPR Article 19(1), the right to hold opinions is absolutely protected (UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34, para. 9). Criminalizing such opinions constitutes a direct violation.

3. Electoral Speech Is Protected
Accusations that Mr. Au “disrupted” the 2024 Chief Executive election are unsupported by evidence of coercion, intimidation, or material disruption under either the Chief Executive Election Law (Law No. 3/2004) or the Criminal Code.

• ICCPR Article 25 guarantees political participation and related expression.
• The UNHRC’s General Comment No. 34 (para. 28) protects even calls for boycotting non-compulsory votes, unless they amount to coercion or incitement.

4. No Evidence of “Serious Consequences”
Article 13’s applicability requires actions likely to cause serious consequences. The PJ offers no evidence that Mr. Au’s alleged conduct led to violence, foreign retaliation, or concrete harm. Under both Macao law and international human rights standards, political speech—however pointed—is not a national security threat unless a direct and substantial risk is demonstrated (see: Han Zhu, Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2024; 郭晶，《一國兩制研究》, 第1期, 2009).

Treaty Obligations and EU Standing

The Chinese Mission to the EU and Macao SAR authorities have dismissed the EU’s statement as foreign interference (Global Times, 3 August 2025; Macao Government, 2 August 2025). However, their assertion lacks merit:

• Macao’s legal authorities have failed to identify “unlawful means” or “serious consequences,” violating both domestic due process and ICCPR Articles 19 and 25.
• The Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, a UN-registered treaty, guarantees autonomy and human rights protections in Macao until 2049. As co-signatory, Portugal—and by extension, the EU—has legal standing to intervene when violations occur.

The arrest of Mr. Au is not merely an internal matter; it is a treaty and human rights violation warranting EU response.

Recommended EU Actions

To uphold international law and the Joint Declaration, HKROLIN urges the European Union to:

• Issue a Follow-Up Statement: Demand Mr. Au’s immediate release unless credible evidence of unlawful acts and serious consequences is produced.
• Coordinate with Portugal: Encourage Portugal to lodge formal diplomatic objections with the PRC, reinforcing its treaty obligations under the Joint Declaration.
• Refer the Case to the UN: File a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee citing ICCPR violations and Macao’s treaty breaches.
• Ensure Transparency: Press Macao authorities to disclose the evidence and legal basis for the charges, ensuring Mr. Au’s due process rights under ICCPR Article 14.

Mr. Au’s case sets a dangerous precedent for repression in Macao, particularly ahead of the 2025 Legislative Assembly elections. The EU’s continued vigilance is vital to prevent further erosion of Macao’s autonomy and legal integrity.

We welcome opportunities for dialogue and coordination. Our open letter of 1 August is available at (click here).

Yours sincerely,

Chi-Sang Poon, PhD
Founder and Editor-in-Chief
Hong Kong Rule of Law Initiative (HKROLIN)
On behalf of HKROLIN and concerned residents of Hong Kong and Macau

📧 info@hkrolin.org | 🌐 hkrolin.org | 📱 @HKROLIN | 📘 facebook.com/