Is handing over the warrant execution an admission of incompetence?
Published: 07 Jan. 2025, 00:01
The arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk Yeol, accused of masterminding an insurrection, expired Tuesday without being executed. President Yoon’s refusal to comply, despite his earlier assurances to face legal and political accountability, is unacceptable.
The situation also exposed discord within the investigative team, composed of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) and the National Office of Investigation (NOI). On the night of Jan. 5, the CIO sent a directive delegating the execution of the warrant to the NOI. However, the NOI rejected this, citing legal concerns. The NOI argued that the CIO, as the recipient of the warrant, must lead the arrest and has no legal grounds to delegate this responsibility to the police. Although the CIO later retracted the directive to maintain collaboration, this episode highlighted the CIO’s lack of competence and preparation.
In reality, coordinated efforts between the two agencies are essential to overcome resistance from the Presidential Security Service. The CIO plans to request an extension of the warrant’s validity, while the police have indicated that they may consider arresting security personnel on-site if they obstruct future execution attempts. The CIO must use this time to strategize and coordinate with the police to ensure effective execution. Merely passing difficult tasks to the police without a clear plan or solution is unacceptable. Further confusion must be avoided. If the CIO determines that it lacks the capacity to carry out the arrest, it may be better to fully transfer the case to the police.
This case underscores the inadequacies in the reorganization of investigative powers under the Moon Jae-in administration. The redistribution of investigative authority between the prosecution and the police, coupled with the establishment of the CIO, was poorly planned. Key issues, such as jurisdiction and scope, were left unresolved. For instance, while the president is subject to the CIO’s investigation, the agency’s mandate excludes crimes like insurrection and treason.
This gap has allowed President Yoon’s legal team to argue that the CIO lacks jurisdiction over insurrection, providing a pretext for his defiance. Although Yoon’s legal team filed an objection with the Seoul Western District Court to block the warrant’s execution, the court rejected the motion late on Jan. 5. Judge Ma Sung-young, who handled the objection, affirmed that the CIO could investigate insurrection as a related crime under the broader charge of abuse of power. Noncompliance with a valid warrant undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. If President Yoon believes he has been wronged, he must seek redress through proper legal channels.
Once this investigation concludes, the fragmented structure of Korea’s investigative system — split among the prosecution, the CIO and the police — must be reexamined and overhauled. Additionally, the Democratic Party’s pressure on CIO Commissioner Oh Dong-woon, including threats to hold him accountable if Yoon is not arrested within the warrant’s time frame, is counterproductive. The party was, after all, instrumental in creating this flawed legal framework.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
The situation also exposed discord within the investigative team, composed of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) and the National Office of Investigation (NOI). On the night of Jan. 5, the CIO sent a directive delegating the execution of the warrant to the NOI. However, the NOI rejected this, citing legal concerns. The NOI argued that the CIO, as the recipient of the warrant, must lead the arrest and has no legal grounds to delegate this responsibility to the police. Although the CIO later retracted the directive to maintain collaboration, this episode highlighted the CIO’s lack of competence and preparation.
In reality, coordinated efforts between the two agencies are essential to overcome resistance from the Presidential Security Service. The CIO plans to request an extension of the warrant’s validity, while the police have indicated that they may consider arresting security personnel on-site if they obstruct future execution attempts. The CIO must use this time to strategize and coordinate with the police to ensure effective execution. Merely passing difficult tasks to the police without a clear plan or solution is unacceptable. Further confusion must be avoided. If the CIO determines that it lacks the capacity to carry out the arrest, it may be better to fully transfer the case to the police.
This case underscores the inadequacies in the reorganization of investigative powers under the Moon Jae-in administration. The redistribution of investigative authority between the prosecution and the police, coupled with the establishment of the CIO, was poorly planned. Key issues, such as jurisdiction and scope, were left unresolved. For instance, while the president is subject to the CIO’s investigation, the agency’s mandate excludes crimes like insurrection and treason.
This gap has allowed President Yoon’s legal team to argue that the CIO lacks jurisdiction over insurrection, providing a pretext for his defiance. Although Yoon’s legal team filed an objection with the Seoul Western District Court to block the warrant’s execution, the court rejected the motion late on Jan. 5. Judge Ma Sung-young, who handled the objection, affirmed that the CIO could investigate insurrection as a related crime under the broader charge of abuse of power. Noncompliance with a valid warrant undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. If President Yoon believes he has been wronged, he must seek redress through proper legal channels.
Once this investigation concludes, the fragmented structure of Korea’s investigative system — split among the prosecution, the CIO and the police — must be reexamined and overhauled. Additionally, the Democratic Party’s pressure on CIO Commissioner Oh Dong-woon, including threats to hold him accountable if Yoon is not arrested within the warrant’s time frame, is counterproductive. The party was, after all, instrumental in creating this flawed legal framework.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)