Breaking News · Macao · National Security Law · Civil Rights · Judicial Transparency · Press Freedom · DINA Analysis
MACAO — November 6, 2026: Macao's Court of First Instance sentenced former lawmaker Au Kam San to 12 years and six months in prison Friday in the territory's first case under its national-security law.
The court said it convicted Au of one count of subversion, two counts of establishing links with organizations or people outside Macao to commit acts endangering national security, and one count of breaching secrecy. It acquitted him of two additional subversion counts after finding uncertainty about whether the alleged conduct reached the statutory threshold for overthrowing or undermining the country's fundamental system.
The convictions and sentence are confirmed by the court's published account. The court's descriptions of Au's purpose, the character of the information and the alleged foreign organizations are judicial findings in a criminal case. DINA has not independently reviewed the complete judgment, the trial evidence or a defense filing and is not presenting those findings as independently verified facts beyond the existence and disposition of the case.
How the court calculated the sentence
The court imposed 11 years and three months for subversion, three years and nine months for each of the two foreign-link offenses and nine months for breach of secrecy. Under Macao's rules for combining sentences, the available range was 11 years and three months to 19 years and six months. The panel selected a single term of 12 years and six months.
A third alleged foreign-link offense arose from the same facts as the subversion conviction and was not punished separately, according to the court. The court said Au was a first-time offender and acknowledged a substantial portion of the underlying conduct, but it found a high degree of intent and grave potential consequences.
The secrecy conviction concerned information from a closed Legislative Assembly committee meeting in 2021 about renewal of gaming concessions. The national-security findings concerned alleged conduct after Macao amended its safeguarding-national-security law in 2023.
What remains disputed about the proceedings
The evidentiary hearings on September 16 and 18 were closed to the public. Friday's sentencing was public, with residents, reporters and Au's relatives present, according to the court.
The court said Au did not hire a lawyer, accepted appointed counsel, communicated closely with that lawyer and exercised his defense rights. It also said relatives were permitted regular visits. Associated Press reporting attributes a sharply different account to Au's daughter: she said a lawyer selected by the family was denied access and relatives were unable to speak with Au for nearly a year. DINA has not obtained prison-access logs, lawyer-authorization decisions or a response from Au's appointed lawyer that would reconcile the accounts.
Human Rights Watch told Reuters that the proceedings were marred by due-process violations and warned that the sentence would chill peaceful criticism. Macao's government rejected that characterization, saying the judiciary acted independently and protected the lawful rights of everyone involved.
Why the case matters
Au, 69, served for nearly two decades in Macao's legislature and was a prominent advocate for democratic reforms and civil-society initiatives. His case is the first publicly known prosecution under Macao's national-security law since the territory returned to Chinese rule.
A first case can shape how police, prosecutors, courts, journalists, former officials and civic groups understand the boundary between protected political activity and criminal subversion. That is especially important when the alleged conduct includes communication with organizations outside the territory and dissemination of information the government characterizes as false or distorted.
DINA analysis: The acquittals show that the panel did not accept every charge, but they do not answer the larger civil-rights question: what precise speech, communication or conduct transformed political advocacy into subversion or prohibited foreign coordination? A public summary cannot substitute for the complete reasoned judgment. The legitimacy of the precedent will turn on whether the decision identifies a clear legal threshold, ties each conviction to disclosed evidence and demonstrates that Au could meaningfully challenge the prosecution's case.
Strongest accountability angle
The central accountability test is whether Macao publishes enough of the judgment and procedural record for independent evaluation of the line between national security and peaceful dissent. The closed trial, restrictions alleged by Au's family and preselection of national-security judges raise questions that cannot be resolved by government assurances alone. Missing records do not prove misconduct, but their publication is necessary for meaningful scrutiny.
Urgent follow-up and records
- Publish the complete judgment in Chinese and Portuguese, including the proved facts, evidence relied upon and legal reasoning for each conviction and acquittal.
- Release a charge-by-charge disposition table showing which conduct supported each offense and why one foreign-link charge was absorbed into the subversion count.
- Publish the orders closing the September hearings and identify the statutory findings used to exclude the public and press.
- Disclose the process for selecting the judges and approving defense lawyers in national-security cases.
- Release privacy-protected counsel-access and family-visitation logs sufficient to reconcile the court's account with the family's allegations.
- Identify whether Au has filed or intends to file an appeal and publish the applicable deadline and review standard.
- Preserve all evidence inventories, communications records and translations used at trial for appellate and independent legal review.
Primary and corroborating sources
- Macao Court of First Instance — official charge disposition and sentencing statement, November 6, 2026
- Macao SAR Government — official response supporting the judgment, November 6, 2026
- Reuters — sentencing, background and Human Rights Watch response, November 6, 2026
- Associated Press — case history and Au family allegations, November 6, 2026
- U.N. Human Rights Committee — concluding observations on judicial independence and fair-trial safeguards in Macao national-security cases, July 2022