Wong On-yin, a 72-year-old current-affairs commentator, told the District Court he signed a confidentiality notice after barely reading it. He is charged with obstructing an investigation into offences endangering national security and knowingly publishing seditious publications.
The judge ruled on Tuesday that the prosecution had established a case to answer. That was a procedural ruling, not a verdict; the trial continued on Wednesday with Wong giving evidence.
Wong testified that officers from the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force told him their meeting had to remain confidential but did not specify what information that covered. He said he signed the notice without much thought and had not really read it. He also acknowledged that he did not ask the officers to clarify the scope.
He said his previous work at the Independent Commission Against Corruption had shaped his understanding: he believed confidentiality applied once an investigation had been opened. Wong said he did not know what the officers were investigating and therefore did not understand what needed to be kept confidential.
The prosecution said police intelligence indicated that a press conference about the Wang Fuk Court fire was planned for the afternoon of 2 December 2025, and that officers met Wong that day. Wong testified that he wanted the meeting to end so the press conference could go ahead, but other organisers cancelled it after meeting officers. He said he respected their decision and believed the officers had finished their work. After the conference did not take place, he posted on YouTube material he had intended to present there.
On the separate charge concerning 30 videos alleged to be seditious, Wong said he could find no clear pattern beyond their connection to national security. He identified 19 as referring to either the National Security Department or the Secretary for Security: 11 to the department and eight to the secretary. He described the prosecution as having a strong element of retaliation.
Wong also challenged the suggestion that the videos could incite people to riot. He testified that 70% of his channel’s subscribers were aged 65 or older and questioned how he could incite that audience to riot.