Macao Sentences Ex-Lawmaker to 12½ Years in First National Security Case
Macao’s Court of First Instance sentenced former lawmaker Au Kam San to 12 years and six months in prison on Friday, delivering the Chinese special administrative region’s first judgment under its national security law.
The court convicted Au, 69, of one count of subversion, two counts of links with organizations outside Macao that it deemed harmful to national security, and one breach of secrecy. It imposed 11 years and three months for subversion, three years and nine months for each overseas-links offense, and nine months for the secrecy violation before combining the penalties under Macao law.
The court also acquitted Au of two additional subversion counts because it found the evidence insufficient and did not separately punish another overseas-links count that overlapped with the subversion offense. Those distinctions matter in a case that will define the first judicial boundary of a law Macao enacted in 2009 and expanded in 2023, according to the published judgment record.
According to the judgment summarized by Macao authorities, Au spent years assisting organizations outside the territory that the court described as hostile to China. Judges found that he collected, prepared and circulated false or distorted political material intended to incite hatred and undermine Macao’s constitutional system.
The proceedings ran behind closed doors from September 16 to 18. The court said secrecy was necessary to prevent harm to national security interests. Friday’s judgment was public, and dozens of observers attended. The court had announced the public reading one day earlier.
Au served in Macao’s Legislative Assembly for two decades before retiring in 2021. Police arrested him in July 2025, making him the first person charged under the territory’s national security statute. The case therefore reaches beyond the fate of one former legislator: it converts a largely preventive legal framework into an enforceable judicial precedent.
Prosecutors also accused Au of disclosing confidential Legislative Assembly information in 2021 concerning gaming concessions, a central pillar of Macao’s economy. The court convicted him of violating official secrecy on that evidence.
Macao’s government said the judiciary heard the case independently, protected Au’s legal rights and applied the law to established facts. It framed the prosecution as part of the territory’s constitutional duty to safeguard national sovereignty and security under “One Country, Two Systems.” China’s central office for Hong Kong and Macao affairs said the verdict would help protect Macao’s prosperity and stability.
Au’s family and international counsel sharply disputed that account. His wife called the prosecution a political trial and questioned how the public could evaluate a verdict after a closed hearing. His international legal team said the process denied basic safeguards and punished peaceful political activity. Those are allegations from Au’s supporters, not findings accepted by the court. The Associated Press and Reuters reported those objections.
The court responded that Au had counsel appointed in accordance with national security procedures, accepted that representation and received family visits. Its published record also emphasized the partial acquittals as proof that judges weighed each charge separately.
Macao returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1999 and retains its own courts and legal system. The city has generally experienced less political confrontation than neighboring Hong Kong, but the 2023 amendments broadened the law’s reach to cover nonviolent conduct, external connections and a wider definition of national security.
Friday’s sentence now supplies the first concrete measure of that expanded framework. It signals that overseas political coordination, the circulation of material the courts deem deliberately false, and unauthorized disclosure of legislative information can produce severe cumulative penalties.
The judgment also places a new burden on Macao’s institutions: they must demonstrate that security enforcement remains compatible with the territory’s separate legal order. Officials argue that firm enforcement protects the stability on which Macao depends. Au’s supporters argue that a closed trial and broad offenses restrict political dissent. The published verdict records both the force of the state’s case and the procedural questions that will follow it.
The next significance of the Au case will not come from slogans. It will come from how consistently Macao’s courts explain the law, distinguish criticism from criminal conduct and preserve visible due process as the territory applies its new national security precedent.
Comments