This file photo dated Aug 21, 2019 shows Hong Kong Police Headquarters in Hong Kong. (PHOTO / XINHUA)
HONG KONG – The Hong Kong Police Force said a recent search conducted with a court warrant to collect evidence was legal, reasonable and rational.
Responding to media enquiries early Thursday, a spokesperson for the Hong Kong Police Force said the search and seizure of an exhibit was related to an “incitement to subversion” case under the National Security Law by the National Security Department of the force.
The exhibit in question, a statue, was dismantled and removed by the University of Hong Kong in 2021 "based on external legal advice and risk assessment for the best interest of the university". It had since been kept in a cargo container on university-owned land in Yuen Long before being seized by police last week.
ALSO READ: NSL: HK to deal with overseas lawyers' role 'case-by-case' basis
The exhibit in question, a statue, was dismantled and removed by the University of Hong Kong in 2021 "based on external legal advice and risk assessment for the best interest of the university"
The spokesman emphasized that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government carried out its duties and obligations to safeguard national security in accordance with the law, and the handling of this case is no exception.
The HKSAR government would continue to handle the exhibit, including the arrangement after the judicial proceedings, in accordance with the law, the spokesperson was quoted as saying in a press release.
Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung on Tuesday criticized an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal on last week's seizure of the exhibit.
READ MORE:CE appoints new police national security department head
"We must also point out that investigation has been on-going for the case concerned. Like any other case, to collect evidence following progress of investigation to take forward the case is legal, reasonable and rational. That the opinion piece presented the exhibit of the criminal investigation as an 'artwork' and the case as one concerning mere 'dissent' is totally misleading," his letter to WSJ reads.
With inputs from Agencies.