Macau has passed a new national security law permitting closed-door court proceedings, a move drawing international concern over its implications for transparency and civil liberties in the Chinese-ruled city.
On March 19, Macau’s Legislative Assembly unanimously approved the major revision to its national security framework. The legislation allows judges to refer sensitive matters to a powerful security committee, which then determines whether a trial should be closed to the public if national security could be at risk.
The Committee for Safeguarding National Security, established in 2018 and now bolstered by recent legislation, has the final say on such cases. Its determinations are not subject to appeal or further judicial review, centralizing considerable power in one government body.
Under the new rules, lawyers seeking to participate in national security cases must first obtain official clearance from authorities. The justification is to prevent the mishandling or disclosure of classified state information. However, legal experts warn this step could intimidate lawyers, pushing them to self-censor in hopes of being approved, and may limit the talent pool available for defense in politically sensitive cases.
Criticism has also emerged regarding the lack of appeal for lawyers denied approval, with observers describing the review process as opaque and potentially open to abuse.
Official statements tout the legislation as a reinforcement of the principle of “patriots governing Macau” and stress that it safeguards the city’s stability. Yet there are growing fears among activists, legal professionals, and some international observers that the closed-door provision erodes the transparency of Macau’s legal process and diminishes the rights protected under its Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.
The backdrop to the debate includes the recent arrest of former legislator Au Kam-san under earlier national security amendments, a case that was criticized by rights groups and cited as emblematic of the law’s risks to dissenting voices.
The law is scheduled to take effect upon official publication, a rapid turnaround that leaves little time for public debate or adjustment. The government claims this is essential to match evolving security needs. Critics, meanwhile, point out the potential for governmental overreach and the chilling effect on civil society and legal advocates.
As the law comes into force, close attention is expected from international legal and human rights communities. Observers regard Macau’s experience as increasingly similar to the trajectory of neighboring Hong Kong, where similar security law changes have led to global condemnation and significant shifts in the city’s legal and political landscape.