Advertisement

National security law: jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai asks court to restore his voting rights at Next Digital

  • When the security minister froze HK$500 million of Lai’s assets in May, he also prohibited the businessman from exercising his voting rights
  • Lai, who faces multiple charges under the national security law, is now arguing voting does not constitute ‘dealing with’ the assets

Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
4
Jimmy Lai, the founder of the now-defunct Apple Daily. Photo: EPA-EFE
Jailed Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has asked a court to restore his voting rights as the major shareholder of Next Digital after the government froze nearly HK$500 million (US$64.4 million) of his assets under the national security law.
Advertisement

The security minister exercised his power under Article 43 of the law in May to prohibit Lai from handling his 1.88 billion shares, amounting to 71.26 per cent of the total issued, as well as funds in the local bank accounts of three companies he owned.

The police’s National Security Department later confirmed to the media company the 73-year-old must not in any way exercise his voting rights on the Next Digital board without the permission of the secretary for security.

YouTube video player

In the writ filed with the High Court on Wednesday, Lai’s lawyers argued the ban on exercising his voting rights did not constitute “dealing with” the frozen properties under the security law’s implementation rules.

They applied for the court’s approval to allow Lai to vote in the company’s general meetings, which would effectively override the ban.

The formal application will be heard on July 22 before Mr Justice Anthony Chan Kin-keung, who is among a pool of jurists selected by city leader Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to handle security law proceedings.

Advertisement

The security minister can bar a person from dealing with properties believed to be connected with a national security offence, unless expressly allowed, for a maximum period of two years. But the affected person can apply to a designated judge at the Court of First Instance to revoke or vary the order.

Advertisement