The governing council's decision, the first time that a candidate selected by the committee was rejected, was widely viewed as political retaliation for Chan's involvement with pro-democratic figures including his former subordinate Benny Tai.
A majority of HKU Council members are not students or staff of the university, and many are directly appointed by the chief executive of Hong Kong (who at that time was Leung Chun-ying).
The selection committee unanimously recommended the council appoint Johannes Chan to the pro-vice-chancellor post responsible for staffing and resources, a position that had been left vacant for five years.
[8] He was derided in Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, which together published more than 350 articles attacking him and accusing him of "meddling in politics" for his involvement with pro-democratic figures including his former subordinate Benny Tai.
[3][17] This is partly because six members of the council are directly appointed by the Chief executive of Hong Kong, who acts as chancellor of all publicly funded tertiary institutions in the territory.
[23][24] Wen Wei Po, citing from a leaked University Grants Commission report, stated that Chan's academic record on research was not up to international standards while he was dean of the law school.
[25] According to an article by Kevin Lau in Ming Pao, parties close to the government applied pressure on committee members behind the scenes to block Chan's appointment.
[28][29][30] CY Leung's lieutenant Fanny Law, who was found to have interfered with institutional autonomy in 2007 whilst serving as education secretary, categorically denied having intervened.
[26] However, i-Cable and South China Morning Post subsequently revealed that CY Leung had convened at least three meetings with Peter Mathieson within four months during the period the decision was being deferred.
[34] Following the postponement of 30 June, the postgraduate student representative, Aloysius Arokiaraj, resigned from the council in frustration, stating that the decisions "[fell] short of my expected standards".
[2][35] At the meeting on 28 July Arokiaraj voted against the deferral but in a letter to the South China Morning Post he criticised students' angry conduct during the storming of the conference room.
[38] Mathieson complained that he and others who had backed the appointment of Johannes Chan as pro-vice-chancellor had been subjected to "orchestrated" pressure by some political elements, his personal emails having been hacked and some of it published in pro-Beijing media.
[39] On 1 September 2015 the HKU Convocation, a body of more than 162,000 alumni and faculty, convened an Extraordinary General Meeting at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre to hold a vote on the issue.
[54] A recording of the proceedings was obtained by Commercial Radio Hong Kong, which then broadcast excerpts of the discussions in late October featuring Arthur Li and Leonie Ki that confirmed the relevant parts of Billy Fung's accounts.
"[56][57][58] The council, which had voted to suspend Fung from future meetings, authorised the hiring of a security professional in an attempt to identify the source of the audio, and also brought in the police to investigate whether a crime had been committed.
[60] Commercial Radio (CR) reached an agreement with HKU on 5 November undertaking not to air any other content of the council's past or future meetings unless these had already been reported by other media, meaning compliance with the terms of the interim injunction obtained by the university a few days earlier.
[61] The presiding High Court judge expressed reservations that Leong, on behalf of HKU, was seeking a "perpetual injunction on all meetings, future, past, and present".
While CR's lawyer said agreement to comply with the court order did not imply that the station is compromising on press freedom, Hong Kong Journalists Association expressed disappointment at the broadcaster's decision.
[58] The university insisted that the radio broadcaster must disclose the source of the leaked recording, which CR vowed it would never do,[62] while a legal expert noted that privacy was not on equal footing with the freedom of information, and that legislation protecting whistleblowers was lacking in Hong Kong.
[65][68] After the decision, Johannes Chan said that as a statutory publicly funded body, the council should act in an open and transparent manner and confirmed that he thought that his rejection was politically motivated.
Yash Ghai stated that "as a long-serving member of HKU [...] it grieves me greatly to see the council turn to these nasty tricks to deny [Chan the job] in order to – one must assume – appease the Chinese government".
[19] The Hong Kong University Students' Union called the decision unjust and unfair, and demanded an explanation from the council members who voted against Chan's appointment.
[2] Education lawmaker Ip Kin-yuen said "It's obvious that the decision was a political one [...] Academic freedom will no longer exist after this" and "Today is the saddest day in the University of Hong Kong's 100 years of history.
[14] Sing Ming, a professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, echoed the observation that a lack of a PhD is not unusual among heads of law schools internationally.
"[75] Speaking at the protest Timothy O'Leary, head of the Humanities Department, described Chan's non-appointment as "an absolute disgrace", and said "we march in silence to demonstrate to ourselves and to the city of Hong Kong what a university could be like if its academic staff and students were silent.
[78] The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission published its annual report in mid-November drawing attention to declining press and academic freedom in Hong Kong.
The HK government retorted that Hong Kong enjoyed a high degree of autonomy under one country, two systems enshrined in the Basic Law, adding that the eight "University Grants Committee-funded institutions were all independent and autonomous statutory bodies".