2026年2月9日，香港壹傳媒創辦人黎智英的國安法案件在香港法院正式宣判，此一案件不僅在本地社會引起巨大震動，也在國際間引發廣泛關注與強烈反應。法院最終判處黎智英20年有期徒刑，罪名包括兩項「串謀勾結外國勢力」以及一項「串謀發布煽動刊物」，這使得他成為近年來國安法框架下刑期最重的被告之一。判決同時也涉及其他多位壹傳媒前高層，其中六名被告被判處的刑期從6 年9個月到10年不等，顯示本案的審理與量刑尺度相當嚴厲。

黎智英現年78歲，由於所判刑期高達20年，意味著如果服滿全部刑期，他在獄中度過的時間將延伸到近百歲高齡。這一現實引發社會各界的深切擔憂，其子黎崇恩公開指出，對一位高齡者而言如此長期的監禁實質上等同於「死刑」，許多國際人權組織也公開聲援，強調人道主義與年齡因素應在量刑考量中被重視。

國際社會對此判決的反應強烈且廣泛。聯合國人權事務高級專員辦公室呼籲香港當局立即釋放黎智英，指出這樣的判決違反國際人權法的基本原則，特別是關於言論自由、新聞自由與公平審判的保障。美國、英國、日本等多國政府亦先後表達嚴重關切，批評此案的審理與定罪損害香港原有的民主發展路徑與司法獨立性，並可能對香港作為國際金融與法治城市的信譽造成長遠影響。

此案對區域政治氛圍亦帶來深遠影響，尤其在台灣引發廣泛討論。多家媒體與政治觀察人士指出，黎智英被重判不僅是個別案件，更象徵著「一國兩制」框架下香港制度安排的實際運作已遠離最初承諾的自由與多元。此一事件進一步加深台灣社會對於「一國兩制」在實際落地後所造成的系統性壓迫與制度性不確定性的恐懼與不信任感，也在政治層面強化對台灣自身民主制度堅持的論述與民意共鳴。

總體而言，黎智英案的宣判結果不僅對當事人及其家屬造成巨大影響，更在本地、區域乃至國際範圍內，激起對於香港未來政治與法治方向的深刻關切與辯論。這場判決被視為香港近年政治與法律環境的一個重要分水嶺，其引發的討論仍將在相當長一段時間內持續。

On February 9, 2026, the national security law case against Jimmy Lai, founder of Hong Kong’s Next Digital, was formally concluded with a verdict handed down by a Hong Kong court. The ruling immediately sent shockwaves through Hong Kong society and drew intense international attention and criticism. The court sentenced Lai to 20 years in prison, convicting him on two counts of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and one count of “conspiracy to publish seditious materials.” This made him one of the most severely punished defendants under the national security law to date. The verdict also extended to other senior figures from Next Digital: six former Apple Daily executives received prison sentences ranging from six years and nine months to ten years, underscoring the severity of the court’s approach in this case.

Lai is currently 78 years old, and a 20-year sentence effectively means incarceration until he is nearly 100. This reality has sparked deep concern both locally and internationally. His son, Sebastien Lai, publicly stated that for someone of his father’s age, such a sentence is effectively equivalent to a death sentence. Numerous international human rights organizations have echoed this view, emphasizing that humanitarian considerations and advanced age should have played a role in sentencing decisions.

The international response has been swift and forceful. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release, arguing that the verdict violates fundamental principles of international human rights law, particularly protections for freedom of expression, press freedom, and the right to a fair trial. Governments including those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan have also expressed grave concern, criticizing the ruling as a serious blow to Hong Kong’s democratic development and judicial independence. Many warned that the case could have long-term consequences for Hong Kong’s reputation as a city governed by the rule of law and trusted by the international community.

The impact of the case has also extended beyond Hong Kong, particularly resonating in Taiwan. Media commentary and political analysis there widely suggest that the heavy sentence handed down to Jimmy Lai symbolizes the hollowing out of the “one country, two systems” framework. Observers argue that the case demonstrates how far the system has diverged from its original promises of autonomy, freedom, and pluralism. As a result, the verdict has further deepened skepticism and fear within Taiwanese society toward “one country, two systems,” reinforcing public distrust of the model and strengthening resolve to safeguard Taiwan’s own democratic institutions.

Overall, the sentencing of Jimmy Lai is not merely a legal outcome affecting one individual and his family. It has become a defining moment for Hong Kong’s political and legal trajectory, triggering sustained debate and concern at the local, regional, and international levels. Many view the verdict as a critical turning point that will shape discussions about Hong Kong’s future freedoms and rule of law for years to come.