Judge-led inquiry ensures independence, professionalism, and impartiality

Fu Kin-chi says the appointment of a review committee reaffirms HK's commitment to the rule of law at a critical moment

The deadly fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po has sent shockwaves through Hong Kong society; the tragedy demands a response that is not only swift and compassionate but also thorough, transparent, and authoritative. In announcing the establishment of an independent review committee to be chaired by a judge, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has made a decisive and commendable decision. This move is of significant legal and governance importance, firmly aligning with the core principles of a rule-of-law society and demonstrating the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government's commitment to accountability and public safety.

First, it is a solemn and statutorily grounded response. The chief executive is not relying on the powers granted by the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86) but instead appointing an independent inquiry panel based on the executive authority conferred by Article 48 of the Basic Law. This authority empowers the chief executive to be responsible for implementing laws, determining government policies, and issuing administrative directives, thereby granting the power to establish and appoint independent investigation panels to examine specific incidents.

The decision to invoke an independent inquiry panel represents the activation of one of Hong Kong's most rigorous investigative instruments. This is not an ad-hoc administrative panel but a formal inquiry established under clear legal authority. By appointing a judge to lead it, the government underscored the utmost seriousness with which it treats this major public safety incident. This action transcends routine administrative review; it is a direct and formal acknowledgment of the government's fundamental responsibility to protect its people and to relentlessly pursue the truth in the wake of disaster. It fulfills a core duty of governance and robustly upholds the public's right to know and the imperative of social justice.

Second, it clearly displays the judicial leadership demonstrating the bedrock of credibility and expertise.

The choice of a judicial figure as chairperson is pivotal. It ensures that the inquiry operates with a level of independence, professionalism, and impartiality that is beyond reproach. Judges are trained to evaluate evidence dispassionately, free from political or external influence. Their legal expertise is indispensable for navigating complex factual matrices, interpreting regulations, and determining causal relationships. The conclusions and recommendations stemming from such a judicially-led process carry inherent weight and authority. They will provide an unassailable foundation for formulating concrete, evidence-based reforms in fire safety standards, building management protocols, emergency service coordination, and crisis response mechanisms — addressing systemic gaps rather than merely superficial symptoms.

Third, it shows transparency as a cornerstone of public trust.

The government's pledge to make the inquiry report public is an essential component of procedural justice. Secrecy breeds suspicion; transparency fosters trust. In a mature society governed by the rule of law, open scrutiny of such critical investigations is nonnegotiable. Publishing the full report allows for public oversight, enables academic and professional analysis, and ensures that the lessons learned are fully integrated into public consciousness and policy. This commitment to transparency is crucial for healing societal trauma, rebuilding confidence in public institutions, and demonstrating that the government has nothing to hide in its pursuit of truth and accountability.

Fourth, it helps counter misconceptions: efficacy, power, and the lessons from Grenfell. Some commentators have mistakenly questioned the efficacy and authority of an independent review committee, suggesting that a nonstatutory body lacks sufficient power or credibility. This critique is fundamentally flawed. In fact, there are successful precedents of commissioning nonstatutory committees to conduct inquiry into major incidents. For instance, a nonstatutory committee was established in the United Kingdom last year to investigate the deaths of 27 migrants in the English Channel; a nonstatutory committee was formed to investigate a fatal bus accident on Tai Po Road that resulted in 19 deaths and 65 injuries in 2018.

Moreover, the misguided preference for an alternative, potentially more cumbersome "statutory tribunal" model ignores the critical virtue of focused efficiency. A compelling and cautionary parallel is the investigation into the Grenfell Tower fire in London. Established as a full statutory public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, its process has been marred by extreme protraction. Years have passed with volumes of evidence, lengthy hearing phases, and interim reports, yet final conclusions and actionable recommendations remain pending for many survivors and bereaved families. This drawn-out process, while thorough, has itself become a source of prolonged anguish and delayed justice.

In stark contrast, a judge-led independent committee in Hong Kong is designed to be more streamlined and outcome-oriented. It can cut through procedural complexity to identify key failures and urgent recommendations without getting bogged down in indefinite proceedings. The primary objective is not a decades-long legal spectacle but a timely, authoritative, and actionable verdict that leads directly to preventative measures. The Grenfell experience powerfully argues for a model that balances comprehensive investigation with procedural efficiency — a balance Hong Kong's chosen path is poised to achieve.

Fifth, it expedites from inquiry to action: the path forward.

The ultimate value of the inquiry lies in its capacity to drive meaningful change. Its recommendations will likely span a wide spectrum, from urgent revisions to the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance and the Buildings Ordinance, to enhanced inspection regimes for older housing estates, improved interdepartmental coordination during emergencies, and public education campaigns. Because the inquiry's findings will carry judicial gravitas, they will create powerful momentum for the executive and legislative branches to act swiftly in implementing reforms. This creates a clear pathway to systemic improvement, leading to a demonstrably safer Hong Kong.

Upholding the rule of law with resolve and pragmatism

The chief executive's decision to appoint an independent judge-led committee is a masterstroke of principled and pragmatic governance. It reaffirms Hong Kong's commitment to the rule of law at a critical moment, leveraging the highest standards of legal investigation to serve the public interest. By choosing a model that guarantees independence, ensures efficiency, and promises transparency, the HKSAR government is taking the most responsible path possible. This approach honors the victims, serves justice, and fortifies the city's foundations against future calamities. It is the definitive response a just and resilient society must provide.

The author is a law professor, director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, and president of the Association for the Promotion of Rule of Law, Education and Technologies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.