On May 22, Chris Tang Ping-keung, secretary for security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed a bilateral agreement on the surrender of fugitive offenders (SFO) with the prosecutor general of Kazakhstan, Berik Assylov. This was a significant development, and it sets out the conditions under which fugitive offenders can be returned to either jurisdiction for criminal proceedings. The conditions address the customary international safeguards for criminal suspects, including the requirement that the offending conduct constitutes a crime in both places, that the offense is not of a political character, that additional charges will not be laid upon the fugitive’s return, and that they will not face the death penalty upon conviction.
The Basic Law provides for SFO agreements (also known elsewhere as “extraditions”) to be negotiated with other jurisdictions. The HKSAR government, with the authorization of the central government, is entitled to make “appropriate arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal judicial assistance” (Art. 96). Apart from fugitive surrenders, mutual legal assistance agreements in criminal matters and agreements for the transfer of sentenced persons can also be negotiated, and Tang signed agreements covering all three areas with Assylov.
He explained that Hong Kong and Kazakhstan were “committed players in the international efforts to fight crimes”, with the signing of the three bilateral agreements representing “an important step forward in legal cooperation” between the two places. The agreements should be welcomed, as they will facilitate locating persons, serving documents, gathering evidence, executing search-and-seizure orders, assisting with asset confiscation, and allowing convicted offenders to serve their sentences in their home place.
The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503), which grounds the Kazakhstan fugitive agreement, was enacted in 1997. It succeeded the United Kingdom’s Extradition Act 1989, which extended British extradition arrangements to Hong Kong, and the Fugitive Offenders (Hong Kong) Order 1967, which applied the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 to Hong Kong. It provides a statutory framework for the arrangements for the surrender of fugitive offenders between the HKSAR and other places, as well as for the surrender of persons for the imposition or enforcement of a sentence for certain offenses against the laws of those places. Each party to an SFO agreement makes reciprocal commitments to the other, seeing it as a means of combating crime and holding criminals to account.
The significance of the HKSAR’s SFO agreement with Kazakhstan cannot be overestimated. It is the first such agreement to be signed since those with the Czech Republic (2015), France (2017) and Zambia (2025). It is also the 22nd SFO agreement entered into since 1997, although not all are currently operational.
After the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law was enacted in 2020, the Five Eyes alliance, whose members all had SFO agreements with the HKSAR, suspended their arrangements, imagining it would punish China. To their eternal shame, several European Union countries eagerly joined in, including Germany (allowing fugitive rioters, including Ray Wong Toi-yeung, a founder of “Hong Kong Indigenous”, and his confederate, Alan Li Tung-sing, to set up shop on its soil and mount China-hostile operations).
The Five Eyes suspended the SFO agreements primarily because they wanted to provide a safe haven to individuals who had sought, often with their connivance, to wreck the HKSAR’s “one country, two systems” policy through sustained violence and intimidation in 2019-20. They also saw the fugitives as useful pawns, who could be deployed in their future anti-China campaigns, including propaganda (as has since happened).
However, in their vindictiveness, the Five Eyes shot themselves in the foot. For example, it was no longer possible for fraudsters, money launderers and sex offenders to be returned to the scene of their crimes for trial. This was an affront not only to the victims of crime, but also to everybody who believes in the rule of law (including the “international rules-based order”, to which the Five Eyes pay lip service, at least when it suits them).
As if this were not bad enough, the UK has now compounded the lawless situation it helped create. On July 25, 2025, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government announced it had taken steps to complete the severing of ties between the UK’s and Hong Kong’s extradition systems by removing Hong Kong altogether from the scope of its Extradition Act 2003. Although it was a sad day for global justice, the delight of the criminal fraternity must have known no bounds.
Indeed, there can have been few more contemptible sights in recent times than that of the-then British foreign secretary, David Lammy, and his then deputy, Catherine West, rolling out the red carpet at the foreign office on Jan 21, 2025, for Hong Kong fugitives Chung Kim-wah, Tony Chung Hon-lam, Carmen Lau Ka-man, and Chloe Cheung Hei-ching (notwithstanding each having a bounty on their head of HK$1 million). Although the fugitives were involved in attempts to destabilize China, Lammy (now deputy prime minister) and his colleagues have not only turned a blind eye to their activities but sought to justify them on “free speech” grounds, thereby making a mockery of a noble ideal.
Although Starmer’s government claims to believe in the comity of nations and to support global efforts to combat crime, its actions show otherwise. It cannot be taken seriously when it rips up extradition agreements for bogus reasons and sacrifices basic principles in the hope of attracting political support from Britain’s sizable Hong Kong exile community (for whose votes at election time it is desperate). However, instead of hounding Chinese citizens living in the UK with politicized spying allegations, it should be showing zero tolerance for anybody involved in trying to damage the HKSAR and undermine China by illicit means from within the UK.
With the Kazakhstan SFO agreement in place, it must be hoped that others will shortly follow. If so, it will enhance criminal justice globally and send a powerful message to transnational criminals that they are safe nowhere. After all, the HKSAR plays a full part in law-related organizations, including INTERPOL, the International Association of Prosecutors, the International Bar Association, and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, and its positive contributions to global justice are generally acknowledged by fair-minded observers.
Moreover, the HKSAR’s credentials as a place that treats criminals appropriately, guarantees fair trials and upholds the rule of law are there for all who want to see. This was why, for example, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2025 ranked the HKSAR 24th out of the 143 jurisdictions surveyed for rule-of-law compliance, ahead of the United States and a slew of EU countries, including Greece, Italy and Spain.
Since 1997, the HKSAR has been more than willing to pull its weight by supporting international anti-crime strategies, including in areas as varied as asset recovery, corruption, money laundering, sex crimes and people smuggling. Although the Five Eyes recklessly plays politics with the safety of its people, other places are more responsible. Every effort, therefore, should be made to reach out to them, with combating crime and global safety suitably prioritized.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.