Analysis | Sulu’s road to Assembly back in sights

From left to right: Jorge Menezes, Sulu Sou, Scott Chiang and Pedro Leal

Maverick lawmaker Sulu Sou narrowly avoided permanent disqualification from the Legislative Assembly yesterday after the Court of First Instance found him guilty of the lesser crime of “unlawful assembly” and sentenced him and fellow democratic activist Scott Chiang to fines worth 120 days.

The controversial case had threatened to permanently bar Sou from the legislature if he was found guilty and sentenced to more than 30 days in prison. With a lesser penalty, the young democrat’s path back to the Legislative Assembly is now, in theory, wide open.

But questions remain over how his return will be digested by the powers that be. Most critically, it is unclear whether Sou will have his lawmaker status automatically reinstated, or whether his return will require the consent of his peers in the Legislative Assembly.

Macau analysts were divided yesterday in their view of the Court’s decision, what it says about the city’s judiciary and how Sou’s reinstatement might play out.

Social affairs commentator Larry So hailed the decision as balanced and as a sign of judicial independence in Macau.

“The decision of the courts was quite balanced; Sou did make an offence but the judge came to a rational, independent view of the case,” he told the Times yesterday. “I’m not saying that [the sentence] was a surprise, but I am really glad that the outcome shows we still have judicial independence in Macau.”

As a consequence, the government also emerges from the case a winner, added So, even if “the government’s ultimate objective is to DQ Sou,” he said, referring to Cantonese slang widely used in Hong Kong media to mean ‘disqualify’.

But legal expert and academic António Katchi holds a contrary view, describing the decision as “frightening”.

“It indicates the judiciary is adhering to an authoritarian attitude towards demonstrations and minor incidents that naturally occur during demonstrations,” he explained. “A peaceful attempt to resist police orders in such a heated atmosphere, especially when those orders are perceived as arbitrary, is something so natural that it is usually tolerated in a free society.”

“Of course everybody is disappointed in the most liberal camp in Macau,” added political scientist Eric Sautedé. “Nobody felt that Sulu was guilty of anything. It would have been really outrageous if he had been [sentenced] to prison, so I think it shows some kind of restraint. […] Of course, justice must prevail [and] it is for the judge to decide. But ultimately there is this sense […] of relief that he won’t be suspended.”

After the sentence was delivered early yesterday evening, Sulu Sou told reporters that he expects his suspension from the legislature to be automatically revoked, providing that there is no appeal and that the 120-day fine is settled in a timely manner. He will have to wait 20 days for the appeal period to conclude and then a further 10 days in which the fines may be settled.

This was also the legal view of Katchi, who told the Times that he believes Sou may retake his seat in the Legislative Assembly “as soon as the court’s decision becomes final.”

However, given the unprecedented nature of a lawmaker’s return after suspension, it is not entirely clear how and if the suspension will be lifted. This is especially the case since the courts decided earlier this year that they have no authority to rule on “political acts” undertaken by the Legislative Assembly.

For example, social affairs commentator Larry So believes that the ultimate decision will rest with the other 32 lawmakers of the Legislative Assembly. Asked about the process in an interview with Times yesterday, Sou reasoned that “the lawmakers will have to vote on whether Sou can return.”

Sautedé said he would expect some form of resistance should this turn out to be the case. “There is a general feeling that [Sou] was so disruptive to the status quo of the [Legislative] Assembly that there is [now] a kind of coalition of interests that will try to prevent him returning,” the political scientist said.

There is also the question of several other criminal cases that Macau police authorities claim to hold over Sou. In order to bring him back to the courtroom, Sou’s lawmaker immunity would have to be revoked once more via suspension.

“If the pro-establishment lawmakers want to suspend him again due to the other cases pending against him, they will have to initiate a new procedure to that end,” argued Katchi.

However, should an appeal be lodged at any point within the next 20 days, then the question of Sou’s return will have to be postponed. That appeal is perhaps most likely to come from the prosecution, who in earlier court sessions were pleading with the judge to apply the maximum penalty of a prison sentence.

“There is the possibility that the Prosecutor-General might appeal and that might look very vengeful,” said Sautedé. “I think that would be a mistake, because even among the younger generation in Macau, there is a feeling of unfairness and injustice. This is what triggered the massive [anti-compensation bill] demonstration of 2014 – the idea that things were so disproportionate.”