Behind Closed Doors 'Trial' Begins in Macau Case of Pro-Democracy ex-Senator Mr Au Kam San in First National Security Law Prosecution

On 16 September 2026 the ‘trial’ procedure against Mr Au Kam San in Macao began behind closed doors following a decision on Friday 11 September 2026 that the public and press would be excluded from proceedings.

The proceedings against Mr Au, who spent almost 1 years in incommunicado detention since being seized from his home along with a number of pro-democracy books on 30 July 2025 are concerning given that he has been denied the right to an independent lawyer, is being prosecuted under the vague national security law provisions which fail the international standards in relation to certainty and specificity required to prevent national security provisions from being used a guise for governments to simply bring cases against those who they do not like for exercising their freedom of expression and association, and that the hearing is being held in private which prevents any scrutiny of the Macau Authorities ‘evidence’ and creates a scenario whereby they could present anything, or nothing at all to the Court and a conviction is inevitable.

Mr Au Kam San, 69, is a retired schoolteacher and former member of Macao’s Legislative Assembly. He served as a pro-democracy lawmaker for approximately two decades and was associated with the New Macao Association until retiring from politics in 2021. He later continued writing and teaching but was reportedly forced to leave teaching because of his pro-democracy beliefs.

Mr Au is accused of “subversion against the political power of the State”, “establishing links with organisations or individuals outside the Macao Special Administrative Region for the purpose of acts against national security”, and “breach of secrecy”. The allegations appear to arise from Mr Au’s peaceful political activity, belief in democracy, and his regular meetings with the Office of the European Union to Hong Kong and Macao, whose purpose is to build closer ties between the EU and Hong Kong and Macao. Material seized from his home included pro-democracy books and information concerning the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre

The Portuguese consulate in Macao has requested a consular visit to Mr Au given that he is a Portuguese national as provided under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations however this was refused by the Macao authorities.

On 11 September 2026, Justice Abroad submitted an official complaint to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Belief which argues that the detention of Mr Au, before “trial” and following what appears to be an inevitable “conviction” is arbitrary and unlawful under a number of established bases set out by the Working Group for assessing the legality of detention.  

The bases of the submission to the UNWGAD and Special Rapporteurs is that Mr Au’s detention and prosecution is not being made according to domestic law as the National Security Law does not meet this strict standards of accessibility, specificity, or foreseeability required to meet the international standard for legality and instead, is of a vague nature which enables the Government of Macao/The PRC to use it simply to punish those with whom they disagree, who have not committed any genuine national security offence.  Further, it was submitted that the National Security Law is contrary to the Basic Law of Macao which incorporate the rights to freedom of expression and assembly protected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into domestic law and is in breach of the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information which summarises the accepted international law provisions on national security laws and the protection of freedom of expression.

The submission also argues that as Mr Au has been arrested or placed in detention because he exercised the rights or freedoms of speech and assembly, that the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial were not fully respected, and that the prosecution and deprivation of Mr Au’s liberty was due to discrimination based on his political opinion, this also renders his detention now and after “conviction” arbitrary.

Michael Polak, Director of Justice Abroad and a barrister based in London who acts as Mr Au’s international counsel stated the following:

“It would be flattery to describe what is taking place against Mr Au as a ‘trial’ in any true meaning of the word. He will appear without independent Counsel, without a proper opportunity to prepare a defence to any ‘evidence’ against him or to call witnesses in his defence, and the procedure will all take place behind closed doors.  We  cannot validate this sham process using language which should be reserved for genuine legal proceedings which are decided in a fair an impartial manner by an objective tribunal.

We have made submissions to the United Natinons Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Belief which argues that Mr Au’s detention thus far, and following the inevitable purported ‘conviction’, is arbitrary according to the provisions of international law which also forms part of the domestic law of Macau through the Basis Law’s incorporation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are confident that they will hold that the Macau authorities and the PRC have acted unlawfully and require the release of Mr Au.

Mr Au’s prosecution ccomes under the vague national security law provisions, which fall foul of the strict legal requirements of accessibility, specificity, and foreseeability and are instead of such a nature to enable the Macau authorities, under the direction of the PRC Government, to use it simply to punish those with whom they disagree, who have not committed any genuine criminal offence.  

Further, the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression, and Access to Information, which set out the accepted international law in relation to the use of national security laws, provides that a restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country's existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force. It is farcical to suggest that Mr Au, a 69 year old retired schoolteacher and politician, who dedicated much of his life to representing the people of Macau, poses such a threat.

It is clear that the proceedings against Mr Au are being used to send a warning to others not to exercise their individual rights and we call on the Portuguese government and European Union to demand the release of Mr Au so he can return to his family.

Notes for the Press

For comments on this case by the lawyer, Michael Polak, please email contact@justiceabroad.co.uk

Michael Polak

Michael Polak is an international barrister based in London. He practises in international, criminal, and human rights law from Church Court Chambers.  Michael is also Director of Justice Abroad which helps people who need assistance dealing with legal proceedings overseas as well as working on human rights advocacy for groups and individuals. He is chair of the group Lawyers for Uyghur Rights, was awarded the International Bar Association’s Outstanding Young Lawyer Award for 2021, and is shortlisted as Junior of the Year at the Legal 500 Awards to be determined on 22 September 2026.