Macao jails former legislator Au Kam San for twelve and a half years amid disputes over defence and transparency
Updated: 52 minutes ago
MACAO, 6 November 2026
Macao’s Court of First Instance on 6 November imposed a combined prison sentence of 12 years and six months on former pro-democracy legislator Au Kam San for subversion, contacts with overseas organisations endangering national security, and breach of secrecy. The court described it as the first case under the territory’s national security law since the special administrative region was established. Its statement and independent wire reporting corroborate the sentence. The public reading followed closed hearings, while disputes over defence access, family visits and evidential transparency remain unresolved. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement Reuters report of 6 November
Four penalties combined into a twelve and a half year term
According to the court’s statement, issued at 10.48 am local time on 6 November, one subversion offence attracted 11 years and three months, two offences involving contacts with organisations, groups or individuals outside Macao each attracted three years and nine months, and breach of secrecy attracted nine months. Applying the rules for combining sentences under Article 71 of the Penal Code, the court fixed a single term of 12 years and six months. Adding the individual penalties together would therefore misstate the sentence imposed. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
The indictment and the outcome were not identical. The prosecution had brought three subversion counts, three counts concerning external contacts endangering national security, and one secrecy count. The judges acquitted Au of two subversion counts because reasonable doubt remained about whether the conduct reached the statutory threshold of overthrow or destruction. A further external-contact offence attracted no separate punishment because it overlapped with the more serious subversion offence on the same facts. Describing every original charge as having resulted in punishment would be inaccurate. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
In sentencing, the judges acknowledged that Au had no previous convictions and had admitted a substantial part of the facts, but considered his intent, the unlawfulness of the conduct and its possible consequences serious. The court stated that the available combined term ranged from 11 years and three months to 19 years and six months, placing the 12-and-a-half-year sentence within that range. This explains the publicly stated calculation and reasoning. Without the full judgment, the weight assigned to each mitigating or aggravating consideration cannot be assessed individually. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
The court’s account of the conduct
The court said Au had for an extended period helped what it termed hostile external organisations to collect, prepare and distribute images and information containing subversive political claims and false or manifestly distorted material. It found an intention to incite hatred of the central government and to overthrow or undermine the constitutional system, with conduct continuing after the security law was revised in 2023. These are the court’s findings and legal characterisations. The complete trial evidence was not available for independent examination. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
For the two separately punished external-contact offences, the court identified conduct in 2023 and 2024. It said Au helped overseas organisations collect and publish false information to prompt hostile foreign action against China and Macao and disrupt the sixth chief executive election. On those same facts it did not find the two additional subversion charges proved beyond reasonable doubt. The distinction reflects different statutory elements in the court’s treatment of the offences. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
The secrecy offence concerned a separate episode during his time as a legislator. The court said he disclosed to an overseas organisation confidential information obtained at a closed 2021 meeting of the Legislative Assembly’s committee following land and public concessions affairs, concerning gaming-concession renewals. It applied Article 348 of the Penal Code. The statement did not identify the organisations or reproduce the images and complete communications, leaving readers unable to compare each allegedly false item with its underlying material. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
The statement listed the defendant’s account, witness testimony, seized items, communications records and criminal investigation reports among the evidence considered. This identifies the categories the court said it examined, but does not show how each item supported a particular offence or provide a complete account of defence challenges. Judicial findings, material available for public inspection and public assessments of the case are distinct levels of information and should not be substituted for one another. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
Closed hearings and a public judgment reading
The court’s chronology records an indictment on 27 March 2026, followed by Au’s request for a preliminary examination. On 2 July the examining judge upheld the indictment and committed the case for trial. Hearings took place on 16 and 18 September. A court announcement of 11 September said the trial judge had ordered closed proceedings to protect national security interests, following a prosecution request and confirmation by the national security committee. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement Court announcement on closed hearings
The public reading was formally announced on the afternoon of 5 November for 10 am the following day. Members of the public were asked to collect named tickets in person using their Macao resident identity cards, on a first-come-first-served basis; journalists registered separately through the information bureau. The court said several dozen citizens, media representatives and relatives attended. A public reading makes the outcome visible, but does not enable those excluded from the hearings to reconstruct the full presentation and testing of evidence. Court notice of the public judgment reading on 5 November Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
Conflicting accounts of defence and family contact
The court said it appointed counsel because Au had not retained a lawyer, that he accepted the appointment, and that close communication enabled him to exercise his defence rights fully. It also said requests for regular family visits had been approved. The statement added that he did not dispute most underlying facts and acknowledged that conduct involving collusion with external organisations constituted an offence. These are the court’s public assertions; they do not establish the complete context of every statement made during the hearings. Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
The family’s account differs. His daughter told AP that a lawyer arranged by relatives had been unable to see him. His wife sought correspondence and regular visits without conditions. Court approval of visits and their practical implementation at particular times are distinct questions. Associated Press report of 6 November Macao Court of First Instance judgment statement
Reuters quoted London-based international counsel Michael Polak criticising the proceedings and saying Au should not have been detained for non-violent beliefs. The agency reported that court-appointed counsel did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An international representative’s position should not be treated as that of local trial counsel. No direct post-verdict account from Au or his appointed lawyer was obtained for this report. Reuters report of 6 November
Macao and Beijing support the ruling
In a statement on 6 November, Macao’s government respected and supported the ruling. It said the court had acted independently and safeguarded the lawful rights of participants, and urged society to respect the decision. It described national security as a constitutional responsibility and pledged continued strict enforcement and education. That position directly conflicts with criticisms expressed by relatives and international counsel. Macao SAR Government statement
Responding to AFP at the same day’s Foreign Ministry briefing, spokesperson Guo Jiakun said Macao had the duty and right to handle suspected collusion with external forces endangering national security according to law. He affirmed central government support for punishment of national security offences and opposed outside interference through individual judicial cases. He also said residents’ broad rights and freedoms under the Basic Law were fully protected. Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on 6 November
EU concerns over pluralism and expression
An EU spokesperson’s statement reproduced by Press Club Brussels Europe deplored the conviction and sentence, describing an erosion of political pluralism and free expression and regretting restrictions on public, media and diplomatic access. It recalled protections under the Basic Law, the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration and applicable covenants. The original EEAS verdict page was not located; the reproduced statement is identified accordingly. EU spokesperson statement on the verdict, reproduced by Press Club Brussels Europe
Au, 69, was a long-serving legislator until 2021 and helped organise Tiananmen commemorations. In a statement on 6 August 2025 following his arrest, Human Rights Watch called for unconditional release and characterised the case as suppression of peaceful criticism. That historical position is not an assessment of today’s complete judgment. His public record alone neither proves nor disproves the specific offences. Reuters report of 6 November Human Rights Watch background statement of 6 August 2025
Legal safeguards
Article 27 of Macao’s Basic Law protects expression, the press, publication, association and assembly. Article 40 maintains the applicable provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other instruments, to be implemented through local law. Article 23 also requires Macao to enact its own legislation against subversion of the central government and other national security offences. Security legislation and fundamental rights therefore sit within the same constitutional framework; citing one does not remove the other. Macao Basic Law, Chinese and English text reproduced by the CECC
Article 14 of the Covenant establishes a fair and public hearing before an independent, impartial tribunal, permits exclusion of the public on specified grounds including national security, and safeguards communication with chosen counsel and review of conviction and sentence by a higher tribunal. Article 19 permits restrictions on expression for purposes including national security only when prescribed by law and necessary. A closed hearing alone does not establish a violation. Assessing the grounds for closure, effective defence and compatibility of the convictions with rights protections requires the complete record. United Nations text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Sources
Comments