Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae attended the National Assembly’s audit on the 13th. On this day, National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee Chairperson Choo Mi-ae proceeded with inquiries regarding Chief Justice Cho. Despite Cho’s request to leave the session, Choo did not permit it. Cho had submitted a statement of non-attendance, arguing that the demand for his appearance as a witness was inconsistent with the Constitution and related laws.
However, Chairperson Choo insisted on proceeding with the inquiries, even without Chief Justice Cho having taken an oath. Members of the People’s Power party strongly objected, leading to heated exchanges in the assembly. In his opening remarks, Cho stated, “I have performed my duties according to the Constitution and the law since my inauguration.” He noted that his presence was based on the convention of addressing the assembly at the start and end of an audit. However, he criticized the demand for his testimony as it associated with an ongoing case involving the president and seemed to seek explanations on judicial deliberations.
Chief Justice Cho emphasized the importance of the judiciary not being subjected to inquiries that might compel judges to testify due to specific rulings. He warned that such practices could undermine judicial independence and lead to external influences swaying court decisions. He further explained that the National Assembly’s audit should not interfere with judicial processes, citing relevant laws and constitutional principles.
The Democratic Party argues that Chief Justice Cho is involved in a “presidential election interference” issue, citing the Supreme Court’s decision led by Cho to overturn the conviction regarding electoral law violations by the president. Chairperson Choo emphasized the need for clarification on the alleged interference, calling for transparency. Traditionally, chief justices deliver remarks and then leave out of respect for judicial independence. However, Democratic Party members contended that conventional practices cannot be upheld during extraordinary situations like alleged election interference. Meanwhile, People’s Power members accused the proceedings of violating the principle of separation of powers.