In respect of civil proceedings, the CFA decides which party wins. The CFA adjudicated the cases concerning right of abode in January this year, and decided which parties won. There is no question of the CFA becoming a court of semi-final appeal as has been alleged. An interpretation could change only the principles that are to be applied to claims for right of abode by other persons that are pending or are made in the future. Although the CFA has the power of final adjudication, it is not given the power of final interpretation of the Basic Law.
Judges have the freedom to decide cases in accordance with the law, without interference.
The CFA decided the right of abode case without interference. On the contrary, the rule of law requires the courts to comply with authoritative statements of the law. The Basic Law is derived from Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution. Moreover if there is a strong demand in the community for the current problems to be resolved, an interpretation should not be seen as an 'interference' with Hong Kong's autonomy, but as a response to that demand. After all, Hong Kong does not have the autonomy to resolve the current problems, save through another CFA decision.