*******************************************************

The Government welcomed the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruling today (Friday) which upholds the legality of the interpretation of provisions of the Basic Law (BL) related to the right of abode (ROA) by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), the Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip, said this afternoon.

She made these remarks after the CFA handed down its judgment on a case involving 17 mainland persons claiming ROA in a judicial review of the removal orders issued against them by the Director of Immigration.

"We are pleased that the CFA judgment confirms that the interpretation of BL 22(4) and BL 24(2)(3) made by the NPCSC on June 26 this year is legal and constitutional. The interpretation has effect as from July 1, 1997," Mrs Ip said.

"Today's judgment also confirms that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law under BL 158(1) is in general and unqualified terms, not restricted or qualified in any way by BL 158(2) and BL 158(3)," she said.

In terms of immigration control, Mrs Ip said the judgment had affirmed that the holding of a Certificate of Entitlement (C of E) affixed to a One-way Permit (OWP) was the only means for Mainland persons to establish his eligibility for ROA under BL 24(2)(3). The Scheme has since July 1, 1997 been constitutional.

"Accordingly, Mainland persons claiming ROA under BL 24(2)(3) have to apply for C of Es in accordance with the manner as prescribed by the Director of Immigration in the notice gazetted on July 17, 1999.

"They have to make their C of E applications in the Mainland to the Director of Immigration through the Bureau of Exit-entry Administration (BEEA) and obtain a OWP from the BEEA for entry into Hong Kong to exercise their ROA, and cannot remain in Hong Kong in the meantime.

"The judgment also confirms that in the event of a claimant lodging an appeal against the Director's refusal to issue a C of E, he cannot appeal at any time when he is in Hong Kong," Mrs Ip explained.

The Director of Immigration, Mr Ambrose Lee, pointed out that the CFA had also upheld the original removal orders.

"In the course of the hearing, I have undertaken to the CFA to review the 17 applicants' cases in light of both the NPCSC interpretation and the CFA's decision in the present case."

"The removal orders will therefore not be executed until after that review," Mr Lee explained.

"If it is decided to proceed with a removal order in respect of any of the applicants, they will be given an opportunity to apply to the court to challenge that decision before the removal takes place", he added.

The Secretary for Security said that the government would continue to deal with overstayers and illegal immigrants in accordance with the Immigration Ordinance and the CFA decision.

She stressed that the Government was determined to deter illegal immigration and to maintain order.

"The Mainland authorities are in close co-operation with our law enforcement agencies to prevent illegal entries," she said.

The Law Officer (Civil Law), Mr Ian Wingfield, pointed out that the NPCSC interpretation, as the Standing Committee had stated, did not affect the right of abode acquired under the judgment of the CFA on the relevant cases dated January 29, 1999 by the parties concerned in the relevant legal proceedings.

End/Friday, December 3, 1999

NNNN