UK Bar Chairman’s Ruthless Remarks on Hong Kong Judiciary, ignoring its own ‘Rwanda Farce’

There is a Western saying: "You look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." This proverb fittingly describes Sam Townend, Chairman of the British Bar Association, who recently criticized the rule of law in Hong Kong. In his address at the commencement of the British legal year, Townend refrained from addressing domestic issues, instead focusing his sharp critique on Hong Kong. He claimed that the rule of law in Hong Kong has been eroded by “unchecked executive control”, suggesting that the administration had overridden the judiciary. Despite his stern rhetoric, he failed to provide any concrete evidence to substantiate his claims. Legal professionals were taken aback by his remarks, immediately recalling the "Rwanda controversy" staged by the British government just a month earlier. In that incident, the British government exerted political pressure on the judiciary, compromising human rights principles to authorize the controversial “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration)” act.

In its efforts to curb illegal immigration, the British government launched the "Safety of Rwanda" initiative—a scheme that could serve as a textbook example of poor legal practice. Over recent years, the increasing influx of illegal immigrants led senior Conservative Party members to devise a plan to transfer them to Rwanda by means of  substantial acceptance fees payable to Rwanda. This arrangement, essentially a form of human trafficking, treats refugees in a dehumanizing manner. While British officials frequently criticize the human rights situation in Hong Kong, the Rwanda act is a blatant example of the UK’s own disregard for human rights.

The act, which treats refugees as scum, faced widespread legal challenges and was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the government’s appeal, ruling that the transfer of migrants to Rwanda was illegal. The judge cited Rwanda's poor human rights record, declaring it could not be considered a "safe third country," and highlighted the risk of migrants being returned to their countries of origin or facing inhumane treatment in Rwanda.

In light of this judicial obstacle, the British government was forced to temporarily suspend the plan. However, under intense pressure due to the immigration crisis and wielding the Conservative Party’s parliamentary majority, the government pushed through legislation declaring Rwanda a "safe country." This legal provision effectively compelled the courts to align with the new legislation, preventing them from ruling the transfer of migrants to Rwanda as illegal in the future.

The Conservative government aggressively defended the "Rwanda  Act," rejecting all parliamentary amendments until it passed. This manoeuvre demonstrated the overwhelming power of the executive branch, compelling the judiciary to submit to what some have described as an “iron fist” of executive authority. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that flights transporting migrants to Rwanda would commence within ten weeks to swiftly resolve the situation.

Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, condemned the legislation, stating that it "undermines the ability of British courts to review refugee removal decisions" and "seriously impedes the rule of law in the United Kingdom." He further warned that it could establish a dangerous precedent on the global stage.

UK legal professionals have since questioned Townend: Why did he not criticize the British government’s actions, which clearly exemplify “executive overreach” and severely undermine the rule of law? Instead, he launched “empty attacks” against Hong Kong, alleging that its rule of law had been supplanted by executive power without offering any evidence.

One legal expert noted that this is not an isolated case. There has long been a “hawkish” faction within the British political elite that has exhibited hostility towards China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as seen during the trial of the LAI Chi-ying case. Several British judges appointed as non-permanent judges of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal have faced intense backlash, with some resigning or retiring early under pressure. It appears that Townend, influenced by this faction, has now joined the chorus of critics targeting Hong Kong.

My legal colleagues and I would very much appreciate it if a journalist were to ask Mr. Townend for his opinion on the British government’s “Rwanda controversy.” Is this not a prime example of the executive undermining judicial independence, as he claims? If so, perhaps he should first address domestic concerns before criticizing Hong Kong.

Lai Ting Yiu

What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Trump hunts for weak prey and plays fast and loose with rules. Influencer “Chairman Tu” (兔主席) lays out Trump’s playbook in "A Nation Torn Apart"  (《撕裂之國》): Trump picks on soft persimmons and he has no respect for the law. The US President thrives on behavior that looks downright criminal.

Put those together, and Trump’s latest “kidnapping” of Nicolás Maduro reads like a textbook case of bullying-by-banditry, with a small country openly plundered. That’s American imperialism with the mask ripped off.

Here’s the twist: even with public anger boiling, a few people rush in with gold paint. Wanted fugitive Nathan Law tries to dress up “bandit tactics” as acceptable because, he says, “ending dictatorship” is what really counts.

Nathan Law’s post puts gold trim on Trump’s “Maduro abduction,” making an invasion look cleaner than it is.

Chip Tsao goes even bigger. He argues that without imperialism and colonialism, there would be no modern human civilization. He then hails Trump’s capture of Maduro, along with threats aimed at Colombia and Greenland, as the dawn of a “new era of 21st-century imperialism”. No wonder viewers feel like they’re watching black turned into white right in front of them.

Law’s argument lands fast after Trump’s hard-handed “Maduro snatch.” In a social media post, he says the US military action against Venezuela serves US national security and energy needs, boosts the “defender of democracy” storyline, and also weakens China’s allies while striking at socialist dictators.

With his “Revolution of Our Times” pedigree, it’s no surprise he claps the loudest for the most extreme scenes. He insists that toppling a dictatorship lets long-oppressed citizens “recover hope” and perhaps one day draft a democratic blueprint, so pro-democracy supporters ought to welcome the outcome. The spin is so saccharine it turns Trump into Venezuela’s “saviour,” pretending freedom arrives as a gift basket—delivered by abduction.

Goals don’t cleanse methods

Law then tries to police the language. He tells critics not to quickly label the operation “American imperialism,” and instead to appreciate the “diverse and complex” political motives behind it; translation: if the “goal” sounds upright and reasonable, don’t simplify it into condemnation. Strip it down, and it’s still a defense brief for Trump and his administration.

None of this is exactly shocking if you remember Law’s own US storyline. Around 2019, he and opposition representatives visit the US repeatedly, meet Washington politicians, and get treated like honored guests—deeply grateful for American backing of the “Hong Kong protests.” So now he naturally frames Trump’s move as saving the Venezuelan people, no longer fussing over how ugly the action looks.

None of Tsao’s applause is shocking either: this is exactly his lane. He celebrates Trump’s Maduro stunt and the wider saber-rattling as the launch of a fresh, triumphant imperial era. Then he tops it off with that “imperialism built civilisation” argument, laundering colonialism’s crimes and polishing Trump into Venezuela’s supposed benefactor. It’s creepily adoring, and hard to read without shivering.

Chip Tsao cheers Trump as the man “opening a new era” of 21st-century imperialism.

The mask comes off

Trump isn’t merely “gaffe-prone” this time—he tears the mask clean off. It’s a barefaced assault on Venezuela: snatch people, seize oil (and pocket the money, too). Anyone still clinging to basic morality and justice will see him for what he is: an enemy. Which makes it all the more grotesque that figures like Nathan Law and Chip Tsao can keep marketing him as a “saviour.”

Still, there’s one silver lining: the debate made the masks slip. One round was enough to reveal who was really who.

Lai Ting-yiu