The CFA judgment sparked serious controversy concerning the relationship between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the Central People's Government of China.

In an unprecedented move, the CFA issued a clarification under Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No 2) one month after the final appeal decision.

By the time of their birth, their respective fathers were Chinese citizens who had ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years.

After the transfer of sovereignty to China on 1 July 1997, the applicants reported to the Immigration Department to assert their right of abode under Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law.

"[3]The Article had its origin in Part XIV in Annex I of the Sino-British Joint Declaration which elaborated China's basic policies over Hong Kong.

Under the judgment, applicants who entered the Hong Kong SAR without a one-way permit or a valid certificate of entitlement under the (No 3) Ordinance were to be deported to the Mainland pending appeal.

The rationale was that, the courts of the Region have independent judicial power within the high degree of autonomy conferred on the HKSAR under the Basic Law.

For Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration, the CFA decided that it need not refer to the NPCSC for interpretation of Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law.

In relation to provision of rights and freedom of Hong Kong residents, the Court further stipulated a generous interpretation to the provisions in Chapter III of the Basic Law that contain these constitutional guarantees in order to give to Hong Kong residents the full measure of fundamental rights and freedoms so constitutionally guaranteed.

[1] The CFA's decision on its jurisdiction of reviewing the constitutionality of NPC or NPCSC acts was severely criticised by Chinese scholars and pro-Beijing factions in Hong Kong.

[5] Upon the visit of then-Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung to Beijing, it was reported that Chinese officials also criticised the Statement as unconstitutional and called for its "rectification".

The CFA also clarified that its judgment on 29 January 1999 did not question the authority of the NPCSC to make an interpretation under Article 158 which would have to be followed by the courts of the HKSAR.

[5] On 26 June 1999, the NPCSC responded to the request of the Chief Executive and issued an interpretation of Article 24(2)(3) of the Hong Kong Basic Law.

An amendment to the Immigration Ordinance moved by the Secretary for Security, encapsulating the NPCSC interpretation, was passed by the Legislative Council in July 1999.