Possibility of streamlining investigative powers if special prosecution is launched
Korean Bar Association also supports “permanent special prosecution as a solution”
Ruling party’s stance of “voting against” makes it unlikely to be activated,
On the afternoon of the 12th of last month, the bill for the appointment of a special prosecutor to uncover the truth behind acts of rebellion through the illegal declaration of martial law by the Yoon Seok-yeol administration was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly. December 12, 2024, Yonhap News,
,
, Due to difficulties in securing the arrest of President Yoon Seok-yeol, who is alleged to be the ringleader of a rebellion, there is an increasing call for a special prosecutor as “Plan B.” Amid ongoing debates over whether the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) can investigate treason charges, failures in executing arrest warrants are raising issues of the investigation’s intent and capacity. If a special prosecutor is launched, some confusion may be alleviated, but the divergent stances of the ruling and opposition parties make its actual establishment uncertain.,
,
, According to political circles on the 7th, a re-vote will be held in the National Assembly on the 8th regarding the general rebellion special prosecution, among others. Although both the general rebellion special prosecution and the permanent special prosecution passed the plenary session, neither has been activated. Acting Presidential Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance, Choi Sang-mok, took issue with the fact that only the opposition has the power to recommend a special prosecutor and exercised the right to request a reconsideration (veto). In the case of the permanent special prosecution, Acting President Choi has yet to appoint a special prosecutor.,
,
, If even one special prosecutor is appointed, it is expected that the police, who have jurisdiction over treason charges, and the special prosecutor can cooperate for a swift investigation. Without the launch of a special prosecution, if the CIO hands the case over to the police, it would be difficult for the police, lacking warrant authority, to conduct a swift investigation on their own.,
,
, Han Sang-hee, an honorary professor at Konkuk University Law School, stated, “In a situation where investigative powers are divided, the launch of a special prosecution, which can focus and expedite the investigation, is necessary.” Lee Chang-hyun, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School, commented, “If a special prosecutor handles cases from the prosecution and the joint investigation headquarters, legal controversies like the current issues can be resolved.” The Korean Bar Association also supported this by stating that “the solution to all issues arising in the investigation of the martial law situation is the swift launch of a permanent special prosecution,” strengthening the argument for its establishment.,
,
, However, the People Power Party confirmed their plan to reject the bill by pointing out its unconstitutionality a day ahead of the re-vote on the “dual special prosecution bill” (rebellion and Kim Kun-hee special prosecution bills). On the other hand, Park Chan-dae, floor leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, pressured the ruling party by saying, “If the People Power Party opposes reconsidering (the rebellion) special prosecution law, the perception that they are a party complicit in rebellion and unconstitutional will be firmly established among the public.”