Conflicting testimonies from Yoon's fourth hearing
Published: 24 Jan. 2025, 00:01
President Yoon Suk Yeol and former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun appeared together Thursday at the fourth hearing of the impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court. Kim, called as a witness, offered testimony that appeared to support President Yoon’s claims. He stated that the martial law proclamation, which included a clause banning all political activities such as those of the National Assembly and political parties, was drafted by him based on past proclamations. Kim added that President Yoon seemed not to have thoroughly reviewed the document. Regarding a note that mentioned the establishment of an emergency legislative body, Kim testified, “I authored the document and handed it to Minister of Economy and Finance Choi Sang-mok through a staff member.”
Although President Yoon and Kim previously expressed differing views on the proclamation, their testimony Thursday appeared unified. During the third hearing on Jan. 21, President Yoon was asked, “Did you order Commander Kwak Jong-geun of the Special Warfare Command to remove members of the National Assembly to facilitate a resolution to lift martial law?” He replied, “No.” Kim also testified, stating, “The president never gave such an order. The list of individuals suspected of violating the proclamation was shared with Director Yeon In-hyung of the Defense Counterintelligence Command for monitoring purposes.”
However, on Jan. 22, Kwak testified before a special parliamentary investigation committee probing charges of treason, reaffirming, “The order to remove National Assembly members was indeed given.” Similarly, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) Hong Jang-won claimed that he received a phone call from President Yoon shortly after the declaration of martial law. “The president told me to round up everyone and settle the matter once and for all. Initially, I thought it was about a spy ring, but later learned from the Defense Security Command that it was about arresting politicians,” he said.
These statements directly contradict the President’s claim that the martial law was only a precautionary warning. If neither Yoon nor Kim explicitly gave such instructions, how could Kwak and Hong provide consistent testimonies suggesting otherwise? The assertion that these officials misunderstood their orders strains credibility. While Kim insisted Thursday that the directive was not to “remove lawmakers” but rather to “withdraw deployed personnel [soldiers],” the context of the situation undermines the plausibility of his claim.
The Constitutional Court justices raised questions about whether the martial law proclamation received proper deliberation during the Cabinet meeting on the day of its declaration. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo admitted, “There were procedural flaws in the Cabinet meeting,” but Kim countered, stating, “We held a 90-minute deliberation, and some Cabinet members expressed their agreement.”
Given the conflicting accounts, it is imperative for investigations and legal proceedings to uncover the truth. On Thursday, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) referred President Yoon’s case to the prosecution, seeking his indictment on charges of treason. While the CIO detained President Yoon, it failed to secure admissible testimony from him as a suspect. It now falls to the prosecution to conduct a thorough investigation and build a case that reveals the true nature of the martial law incident. President Yoon, who has consistently refused to cooperate with the CIO investigation, must take responsibility and engage with the prosecution’s inquiry in earnest.
Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
Although President Yoon and Kim previously expressed differing views on the proclamation, their testimony Thursday appeared unified. During the third hearing on Jan. 21, President Yoon was asked, “Did you order Commander Kwak Jong-geun of the Special Warfare Command to remove members of the National Assembly to facilitate a resolution to lift martial law?” He replied, “No.” Kim also testified, stating, “The president never gave such an order. The list of individuals suspected of violating the proclamation was shared with Director Yeon In-hyung of the Defense Counterintelligence Command for monitoring purposes.”
However, on Jan. 22, Kwak testified before a special parliamentary investigation committee probing charges of treason, reaffirming, “The order to remove National Assembly members was indeed given.” Similarly, former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) Hong Jang-won claimed that he received a phone call from President Yoon shortly after the declaration of martial law. “The president told me to round up everyone and settle the matter once and for all. Initially, I thought it was about a spy ring, but later learned from the Defense Security Command that it was about arresting politicians,” he said.
These statements directly contradict the President’s claim that the martial law was only a precautionary warning. If neither Yoon nor Kim explicitly gave such instructions, how could Kwak and Hong provide consistent testimonies suggesting otherwise? The assertion that these officials misunderstood their orders strains credibility. While Kim insisted Thursday that the directive was not to “remove lawmakers” but rather to “withdraw deployed personnel [soldiers],” the context of the situation undermines the plausibility of his claim.
The Constitutional Court justices raised questions about whether the martial law proclamation received proper deliberation during the Cabinet meeting on the day of its declaration. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo admitted, “There were procedural flaws in the Cabinet meeting,” but Kim countered, stating, “We held a 90-minute deliberation, and some Cabinet members expressed their agreement.”
Given the conflicting accounts, it is imperative for investigations and legal proceedings to uncover the truth. On Thursday, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) referred President Yoon’s case to the prosecution, seeking his indictment on charges of treason. While the CIO detained President Yoon, it failed to secure admissible testimony from him as a suspect. It now falls to the prosecution to conduct a thorough investigation and build a case that reveals the true nature of the martial law incident. President Yoon, who has consistently refused to cooperate with the CIO investigation, must take responsibility and engage with the prosecution’s inquiry in earnest.
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)