Macau Concludes First National Security Trial Behind Closed Doors as Former Lawmaker Faces Subversion Charges

Macau’s Court of First Instance confirmed on Friday that the territory has concluded its inaugural national security trial, a process held entirely behind closed doors. The proceedings, which began earlier this week, involved a former pro-democracy lawmaker, Au Kam San, who faces charges including subversion of state power. A verdict is expected at a later, unspecified date.

This landmark trial marks a significant development in Macau’s legal landscape, following the expansion of its national security laws in May 2023 and the passage of legislation this year that permits judges to conduct such sensitive cases in secrecy. Au Kam San, arrested in July 2025 on allegations of undermining state power and collaborating with foreign entities deemed detrimental to China, is the first individual to be detained under these enhanced national security provisions and the first to undergo a closed-door trial.

Background to Macau’s National Security Law

The implementation of stricter national security measures in Macau mirrors trends seen in mainland China and, more recently, in Hong Kong. The territory, a former Portuguese colony that returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1999, has historically maintained a degree of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" principle. However, in recent years, there has been a discernible shift towards aligning its legal framework with that of the mainland, particularly concerning national security.

The expansion of Macau’s national security law in 2023 broadened the definition of threats to national security, encompassing acts that could potentially destabilize the central government or undermine its authority. The subsequent legislative move to allow closed-door trials for such cases aims to protect sensitive information and prevent potential disruption, according to official statements. Critics, however, argue that such secrecy undermines transparency and due process.

The Case of Au Kam San

Au Kam San, a 69-year-old former legislator, is accused of subversion of state power, forging ties with foreign organizations and media outlets perceived as hostile to China, and endangering national security. His arrest in July 2025 and subsequent trial have drawn significant attention from human rights advocates and legal observers concerned about the erosion of civil liberties in the region.

The Court of First Instance stated that the proceedings, which commenced on Wednesday, have now concluded, and the verdict will be delivered at a later date. The court did not provide specific details regarding the evidence presented or the nature of the closed-door proceedings.

Criticism of the Closed-Door Trial

The decision to hold the trial in secrecy has been met with strong criticism from legal professionals and rights advocates. Michael Polak, a London-based barrister representing Au Kam San, expressed profound concerns about the fairness and transparency of the proceedings.

"The fact that the ‘trial’ of Mr Au was completed in secret, without him being represented by independent counsel underlines the farcical nature of the proceedings," Polak told Agence France-Presse (AFP). He further argued that it is "impossible for evidence to have been properly evaluated and a proper process to have been followed for such a serious offence in such a short period of time." Polak’s statement highlights the challenges faced by defendants in national security cases, particularly when trials are conducted away from public and media scrutiny.

Jorge Menezes, a Portuguese lawyer with extensive experience practicing in Macau, echoed these sentiments, stating that closed-door trials "shielded from public and press scrutiny, because secrecy conceals miscarriages of justice." He added, prior to the trial, that "It is not about justice, security, or the rule of law; it is designed to intimidate everyone into submission to the Chinese Communist Party." These comments underscore the broader anxieties surrounding the increasing use of national security legislation to curb dissent and political opposition in Macau and other Chinese territories.

Historical Context: Tiananmen Square Vigils

Au Kam San was known for his role in organizing Macau’s annual candlelight vigils commemorating the victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. For many years, Macau and Hong Kong were the only places within Chinese territory where such public commemorations were permitted. The crackdown on public gatherings and expressions of dissent in both cities has been a growing concern for international observers.

The vigils in Macau, particularly those organized by Au and others, served as a symbol of remembrance and a quiet assertion of civic memory. Their discontinuation or suppression, along with the legal actions taken against organizers, signals a significant shift in the space for public discourse and assembly in the territory.

Broader Implications for Macau and Regional Freedoms

The commencement and conclusion of Macau’s first national security trial behind closed doors carry significant implications:

• Erosion of Transparency: The use of closed-door proceedings for national security cases raises serious concerns about judicial transparency and accountability. Without public or media access, it becomes difficult to ascertain whether due process is being followed and if verdicts are based on fair evaluations of evidence.
• Chilling Effect on Dissent: The prosecution of a former lawmaker on charges of subversion and collaboration with foreign entities, coupled with the secrecy surrounding the trial, is likely to have a chilling effect on political activism and freedom of expression in Macau. Individuals may become more hesitant to engage in any form of criticism or advocacy that could be construed as a threat to national security.
• Alignment with Mainland China’s Legal Framework: The expansion of national security laws and the adoption of stringent enforcement measures in Macau signify a continued trend of aligning its legal system with that of mainland China. This raises questions about the future of Macau’s autonomy and the distinct legal traditions it has maintained since its handover.
• International Scrutiny: While Macau may operate under its own legal framework, actions taken regarding national security are often viewed within the broader context of China’s human rights record. The closed-door trial of Au Kam San is likely to attract further international attention and criticism from human rights organizations and Western governments.
• Impact on Civil Society: The prosecution of figures like Au Kam San, who have been active in civic and political life, can weaken civil society organizations and their ability to operate freely. This can lead to a more controlled and less pluralistic society.

Timeline of Key Events:

• 1999: Macau is returned to Chinese sovereignty under the "one country, two systems" principle.
• 2003: Macau enacts its own national security law, but it remains largely dormant for years.
• May 2023: Macau expands the scope of its national security laws, introducing stricter definitions of threats to national security.
• This Year (2024): Legislation is passed allowing judges to conduct national security trials behind closed doors.
• July 2025: Former Macau lawmaker Au Kam San is arrested on charges including subversion.
• Earlier This Week: The first national security trial in Macau, involving Au Kam San, commences behind closed doors.
• Friday (Date of Report): Macau’s Court of First Instance confirms the conclusion of the trial, with a verdict to be issued at a later date.

The outcome of Au Kam San’s trial, and the legal precedent it sets, will be closely watched as a barometer of the evolving legal and political landscape in Macau. The emphasis on secrecy and the broad definitions of national security offenses suggest a continued trajectory towards tighter control, raising concerns about the preservation of fundamental freedoms and the rule of law in the territory. The case underscores the delicate balance between maintaining stability and safeguarding individual liberties, a challenge that continues to define the future of regions operating under the "one country, two systems" framework.