Investigate swiftly for convincing evidence
Published: 09 Dec. 2024, 20:00
The prosecution has launched a full investigation on the brief presidential declaration of martial law, arresting former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun on charges of treason as well as mutiny under military criminal law for recommending the unwarranted emergency order to the president. Kim is charged for masterminding the late-night plot. President Yoon Suk Yeol is booked to be investigated on charges of power abuse and treason for declaring martial law that can be invoked only in extreme circumstances such as war or social upheaval.
Article 84 of the Constitution protects the president from being summoned for criminal charges while in office unless it is a case of being accused of invoking civil disorder or committing foreign exchange crime. The provision at the same time would mean the president can face a criminal trial and persecution if found to be involved in insurrection or foreign-exchange crime. The president must fully cooperate and live up to his promise to not shy away from the legal and political liabilities related to his martial law declaration.
What can somewhat appease public disquiet is a speedy and thorough investigation into the extreme situation to bring sober retribution to those responsible. Park Se-hyun, the head of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office spearheading the special investigation, summed up the case as public officials abusing state authority to elicit a riot for the purpose of sabotaging the Constitution. The unsubstantiated declaration of martial law to mobilize armed forces to block the National Assembly can constitute power abuse as well as the felony of treason.
The case will inevitably require a special counsel probe warranted by the legislature. Before the legislative process, state prosecution and police must investigate the president as well as others to answer to public queries.
The initial divide between the prosecution and police on the command over the case is inexcusable. The prosecution initiated the questioning and arrest of the former defense minister while the police carried out the raid and search of his office and residence. The prosecution argues it has command over the case of treason — which in principle falls on the police’s turf — if it is pertinent to state power abuse, while the police maintains it cannot share the jurisdiction. Whatever the reason, the two law enforcement offices must set aside their differences to bring about productive results if they do not wish to aggravate public anger.
Article 84 of the Constitution protects the president from being summoned for criminal charges while in office unless it is a case of being accused of invoking civil disorder or committing foreign exchange crime. The provision at the same time would mean the president can face a criminal trial and persecution if found to be involved in insurrection or foreign-exchange crime. The president must fully cooperate and live up to his promise to not shy away from the legal and political liabilities related to his martial law declaration.
What can somewhat appease public disquiet is a speedy and thorough investigation into the extreme situation to bring sober retribution to those responsible. Park Se-hyun, the head of the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office spearheading the special investigation, summed up the case as public officials abusing state authority to elicit a riot for the purpose of sabotaging the Constitution. The unsubstantiated declaration of martial law to mobilize armed forces to block the National Assembly can constitute power abuse as well as the felony of treason.
The case will inevitably require a special counsel probe warranted by the legislature. Before the legislative process, state prosecution and police must investigate the president as well as others to answer to public queries.
The initial divide between the prosecution and police on the command over the case is inexcusable. The prosecution initiated the questioning and arrest of the former defense minister while the police carried out the raid and search of his office and residence. The prosecution argues it has command over the case of treason — which in principle falls on the police’s turf — if it is pertinent to state power abuse, while the police maintains it cannot share the jurisdiction. Whatever the reason, the two law enforcement offices must set aside their differences to bring about productive results if they do not wish to aggravate public anger.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)