The Lu Zhaolong Case: The Fragility of Whistleblower Rights and the Temperature of the Rule of Law

The Lu Zhaolong Case: The Fragility of Whistleblower Rights and the Temperature of the Rule of Law

Whistleblower Lu Zhaolong, with his sole effort, reported Yang Gengding, the president of the Cheng County Court, Li Haifeng, the deputy procurator-general of the Cheng County Procuratorate, and Wang Zhaozhi, the director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Cheng County Procuratorate, for suspected abuse of power and dereliction of duty. However, he did not expect that this lawful exercise of his whistleblower rights would ultimately result in a sentence of three years and six months in prison.

In the mountains of Cheng County, Gansu Province, there was once a weighty whistleblower letter, carrying the ordinary people's simple expectations for fairness and justice. Whistleblower Lu Zhaolong, with his sole effort, reported Yang Gengding, the president of the Cheng County Court, Li Haifeng, the deputy procurator-general of the Cheng County Procuratorate, and Wang Zhaozhi, the director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Cheng County Procuratorate, for suspected abuse of power and dereliction of duty. However, he did not expect that this lawful exercise of his whistleblower rights would ultimately result in a sentence of three years and six months in prison. This seemingly absurd case not only concerns the fate of one person but also questions the original intention of the whistleblower system and the temperature of the rule of law.

The starting point of the story dates back to the case of Cheng County People's Court (2016) Gansu 1221 Criminal First Instance

1. Cheng County Chinese Property Insurance Company and its related personnel, Wang Hui, were suspected of defrauding the Cheng County finance of over 800,000 yuan in subsidies through fabricated facts. This sum of money, which was originally intended for public welfare and social security, was suspected to have flowed into the company and a private individual's pocket. What Lu Zhaolong could not accept was that during the handling of the case, Yang Gengding, Li Haifeng, and Wang Zhaozhi, as core responsible persons of the judicial organs, not only failed to investigate the relevant personnel's criminal responsibility according to law but also were suspected of abuse of power and dereliction of duty. The 800,000 yuan was a lifetime savings for ordinary people and a valuable resource for local finance that could be used to improve education and healthcare. As a member of the Communist Party and a state functionary, Lu Zhaolong saw this sum of money being suspected of being illegally occupied, and the judicial fairness being suspected of being interfered with by power. His sense of responsibility drove him to stand up.

"Whistleblowing is a right of citizens and an important channel for supervising power," Lu Zhaolong believed. He organized the relevant clues and materials and sent whistleblower letters to the local disciplinary inspection and supervision, judicial, and other related departments in Cheng County, and then to the superior authorities in Longnan City. He expected that some department would pay attention to this whistleblower letter and that someone would stand up to investigate the facts and let the violators be punished and the public funds be retrieved. However, reality gave him a heavy blow

• from Cheng County to Longnan, his whistleblower letters were like stones sinking into the sea, without any formal response, without any notification of investigation progress. The channels that should respond to the people's demands were silent at this time.

In the dilemma of repeated whistleblowing without results and seeking help without a door, Lu Zhaolong did not choose extreme methods but adhered to the bottom line of lawful rights protection, only reflecting the problems through the most gentle and lawful way of sending letters. He firmly believed that as long as the problems existed and he did not give up, he would eventually get a fair response. But he never expected that this persistence would ultimately be labeled as "picking quarrels and provoking trouble."

In April 2022, the Cheng County Procuratorate approved the arrest of Lu Zhaolong on suspicion of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, and the court subsequently made a first-instance judgment, sentencing him to three years and six months in prison.

This judgment result made many people who paid attention to the case feel puzzled. According to the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Cases of Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble," the core of picking quarrels and provoking trouble is "seeking stimulation, venting emotions, and acting recklessly" or borrowing excuses to make trouble and disrupt social order in conflicts and disputes.

However, Lu Zhaolong's behavior was based on real clues and whistleblowing, supervising suspected illegal and disciplinary behaviors. He did not have the intention of disrupting social order and only reflected the problems through the way of sending letters, without any behavior of randomly beating, insulting, or threatening others, and without making trouble or disrupting order in public places, which was far from the situations of picking quarrels and provoking trouble clearly defined in the judicial interpretation.

More worth thinking about is that Article 41 of China's Constitution clearly stipulates that citizens have the right to file complaints, accusations, or reports to the relevant state organs regarding any state organ or state functionary's illegal or derelict behavior, and the relevant state organs must investigate and handle the case.

The "Regulations on Protecting and Rewarding Whistleblowers of Duty-Related Crimes" further refine the protection measures for whistleblowers, strictly prohibiting any unit or individual from retaliating against whistleblowers. The original intention of the law is to provide a "protective umbrella" for whistleblowers, letting them dare to speak out and supervise bravely, while Lu Zhaolong's experience made this "protective umbrella" appear so fragile.

Some people may say that "abnormal petitioning may constitute picking quarrels and provoking trouble," but the Supreme Court's relevant cases have long made it clear that determining such crimes requires strictly distinguishing between reasonable demands and unreasonable troublemaking. Only when the petitioning procedure is terminated and the person still makes trouble or petitions repeatedly, or adopts ways of blocking doors or hanging banners to disrupt social order, can it be considered a crime.

Lu Zhaolong's whistleblowing has not received any formal handling from any department, and the petitioning procedure has not been terminated. He has not gone to sensitive areas to make trouble or adopted any extreme behavior, only reflecting the problems through the lawful way of sending letters. How can such behavior be considered "picking quarrels and provoking trouble"?

On the other hand, the core problem of Lu Zhaolong's whistleblowing

• the suspected embezzlement of over 800,000 yuan in financial subsidies and the suspected abuse of power by judicial personnel
• has not yet had a clear investigation conclusion.

The public cannot help but ask: Did Cheng County Chinese Property Insurance Company and Wang Hui really exist in fraudulent behavior? What is the destination of the 800,000 yuan in financial subsidies? Did Yang Gengding, Li Haifeng, and Wang Zhaozhi exist in abuse of power and dereliction of duty during the handling of the case? These key questions concerning public interests and judicial fairness should not be shelved due to Lu Zhaolong's imprisonment.

The courage of whistleblowers comes from their faith in the rule of law; the vitality of the whistleblower system lies in the protection of whistleblower rights. If whistleblowers are subject to criminal prosecution for lawful whistleblowing, who will dare to supervise power? Who will dare to maintain public interests? When "whistleblowing" becomes a risk, and "supervision" becomes a luxury, the exercise of power may lose its constraints, and fairness and justice may be trampled. The Lu Zhaolong case is not an isolated example; in reality, many whistleblowers face similar dilemmas. They are either retaliated against or maliciously prosecuted or fall into a situation where they have no way to protect their rights.

China's law clearly stipulates that those who retaliate against whistleblowers shall be held criminally liable if they constitute a crime; otherwise, they shall be given party and government disciplinary actions. We expect the relevant departments in Longnan City and Gansu Province to re-examine the Lu Zhaolong case, launch a re-examination procedure according to law, and investigate the origin and development of the case: investigate whether Lu Zhaolong's whistleblowing is true, investigate whether the relevant judicial personnel exist in disciplinary or legal problems, and investigate the legal and factual basis for recognizing "letter whistleblowing" as "picking quarrels and provoking trouble." If the case exists in misjudgment, it should be corrected according to law, and Lu Zhaolong's innocence should be restored; if there is indeed behavior of retaliating against whistleblowers, the relevant personnel should be held liable according to law, and the dignity of the law should be maintained.

At the same time, this case should become a mirror for perfecting the whistleblower protection system. It is necessary to know that protecting whistleblowers is protecting social fairness and justice and maintaining the foundation of the rule of law. We need a more sound whistleblower reception mechanism to make the whistleblowers' demands receive timely responses; we need more stringent whistleblower protection measures to make the whistleblowers' personal safety and lawful rights not be infringed upon; we need a more rigorous responsibility investigation system to make the behavior of retaliating against whistleblowers pay a heavy price. Only in this way can whistleblowers not be alone, whistleblower rights not be fragile, and every person who dares to stand up can feel the temperature of the rule of law.

Lu Zhaolong's three-year and six-month prison sentence reminds us every day that the protection of whistleblower rights cannot stay on paper, and the pursuit of fairness and justice cannot have any slack. On the road to the rule of law, we need more people like Lu Zhaolong who dare to speak out, and more law-based shields to protect them. Let us pay attention to this case together and expect a result that can withstand the test of law and history, making whistleblowers not afraid and fairness and justice not absent.

We hope that every whistleblower letter can be taken seriously, every brave voice can receive a just response, and the light of the rule of law can illuminate every corner, making power run in the sunlight and fairness and justice benefit every person.

Original Information

Original Title: A Whistleblower Letter and Three Years and Six Months in Prison: The Lu Zhaolong Picking Quarrels and Provoking Trouble Case Behind the Whistleblower Rights Dilemma

Source: WeChat public account "Shishu Cha Jiugu" (Poetry Book Tea Wine Stock)