(Zhenxiong, Yunnan Province – April 6, 2024) Preacher Chang Hao from Zhenxiong Township, Yunnan Province, who was accused of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble “, was scheduled to appear in court at 9:00 a.m. on March 25, 2024. However, when the defense lawyer entered the courtroom on time, they were informed by the judge that the case involved state secrets and would not be publicly heard, with no observers allowed. The court also attempted to conduct the trial via video conference. After strong protests from the lawyer, the judge decided to postpone the trial, with the new hearing time yet to be determined.
On the morning of the scheduled trial, family members of Chang Hao and Christians from his church in rural area of Zhenxiong Township left home at five or six o’clock in the early morning and rushed to the courthouse. Additionally, Christians from other places, such as Chengdu, had arrived the day before, hoping to attend the trial and see Chang Hao. However, they were stopped by court police and not allowed to enter. Over ten close friends and relatives who had arrived early at the courthouse couldn’t enter the courtroom. Nearly every member of the church, where Chang Hao ministers, has been detained at some point due to their faith, with many having been detained multiple times, including an 80-year-old elderly person. Chang Hao has second-level disability. His entire family are believers, and they have dedicated their home as a gathering place. Chang Hao has been detained due to his faith in the past, but this time the detention already lasted for nearly a year. Despite this, other Christians from his church not only show no fear but bravely attempted to attend the trial. Chang Hao’s 87-year-old mother sees her son’s arrest as grace and honor, continually thanking God. Regarding the trial not taking place today as scheduled, these Christians feel no regret but instead are filled with gratitude. Chang Hao’s wife, Enlin, said, “Everything is in God’s hands!”
Furthermore, the court attempted to arrange a video trial for Chang Hao without consulting him or his defense lawyer. The lawyer firmly pointed out that such an action is illegal and demanded a fair procedure. On the morning of March 25th, the lawyer also visited Chang Hao in the detention center and learned that Chang Hao himself had not received a summons for the trial scheduled on the 25th.
The lawyer pointed out that the judge’s sudden change of the trial, citing “state secrets” as the reason for declaring the trial non-public, is illegal. The lawyer argued that the court’s justification lacks legal basis. This case falls within the scope of public trial, and the notice of trial did not mention that the trial would be closed. Before the trial, the lawyer informed the court that Chang Hao’s relatives and friends would be present to observe. However, after more than ten relatives arrived, the court changed its stance without any legal or factual basis. If the court insisted on proceeding with the trial illegally, the lawyer would refuse to cooperate because it was against the lawyer’s practice duty. The lawyer immediately informed the Judicial Bureau of the situation over the phone, refusing to cooperate with the court’s illegal trial and reporting it to the judicial administrative authorities in advance.
During the morning visit to Chang Hao in the detention center, the lawyer also learned that the court had arranged for an online video trial without obtaining Chang Hao’s consent beforehand. Upon consulting with the lawyer, Chang Hao immediately rejected this arrangement. In the courtroom, the lawyer vigorously argued the case, while Christians stood outside the courthouse praying. Eventually, the efforts of the lawyer and the defendant paid off, and the court’s illegal attempt to proceed with the trial was halted. The case will be rescheduled for another hearing. The lawyer promptly went to the detention center to inform Chang Hao of the development. They found out that the court had failed to deliver the summons to Chang Hao before the scheduled trial, which was another procedural violation. Chang Hao fully agreed with the lawyer’s viewpoint and expressed gratitude for the lawyer’s excellent advocacy. He continued to assert that his actions were an exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, not a crime, and maintained his innocence. He also expressed gratitude to those who came to observe the trial and to friends from various places who were concerned about his case.
