Lawyers for Yoon, Assembly face off in impeachment trial's final arguments

Home > National > Politics

Lawyers for Yoon, Assembly face off in impeachment trial's final arguments

Published: 25 Feb. 2025, 19:39 Updated: 26 Feb. 2025, 15:29

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

The 11th and final hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial takes place at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Feb. 25. Representatives for the National Assembly are seated on the far right, opposite Yoon's lawyers. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Lawyers for President Yoon Suk Yeol and the National Assembly laid out dueling final arguments for his reinstatement or dismissal during the 11th and last hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday.

Yoon arrived around 5:00 p.m. to deliver his last statement, approximately three hours after proceedings began, but his remarks were not known as of press time.

The court’s eight justices are expected to issue a ruling in two weeks regarding the parliamentary motion against Yoon, which accuses him of illegally declaring martial law on Dec. 3, 2024, to suppress political opposition and impose military rule upon the country.

The National Assembly’s representatives urged the court to dismiss Yoon for “trying to destroy the constitutional order” and called him a threat to Korean democracy.

Speaking first for the Assembly, which is acting as the prosecution in the case, lawyer Lee Gwang-beom argued that evidence and testimony presented over the past seven weeks of the trial show that the president “personally directed” martial law forces to enter the legislature and try to prevent lawmakers from voting to overturn his decree.

The lawyer said that Yoon’s declaration of martial law “trampled all over the country’s hard-won democratic constitutional order.”

Lee described Yoon as “becoming deluded” into believing that the conservative People Power Party’s (PPP) total defeat in last year’s general election was the result of fraud — a belief he urged the court to “dispel utterly” in order to “stabilize the foundation of this republic.”

Lee also warned the court that the impeached president posed a continuing danger to the country’s democracy and could not be trusted to manage state affairs if he were to be reinstated.

“Who among us can safely say that President Yoon wouldn’t try to declare martial law a second or third time?” he asked, adding that the court “should act as soon as possible” to dismiss Yoon.

Lee’s arguments were echoed by lawyer Song Doo-hwan, who asked the justices if they would be willing to “put a madman in the driver’s seat.”

He further characterized the president as “a man so blinded by hatred and rage that he should not be allowed to wield a sword.”

Song said the court’s decision in Yoon’s impeachment trial “will go beyond determining whether a single individual can stay on as president” and “set the course for the future of law and democracy in Korea.”

Kim Seon-hyu, another lawyer for the Assembly, accused Yoon of having used the Korean military “like a private militia for personal purposes,” thereby violating its requirement to remain politically neutral as well as the principle of civilian rule established by the Constitution in 1987.

Kim argued that “such a commander-in-chief should be held accountable and dismissed” by the court.

The president’s attorneys, however, argued declaring martial law is an executive prerogative that should not be subject to the court’s judgment.

During the final presentation of evidence that took place earlier in the hearing, lawyer Lee Dong-chan said the Constitutional Court should follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that then-former President Donald Trump could not be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers during his time in office.

The attorney also attributed Yoon’s decision to declare martial law to the liberal Democratic Party (DP) “abusing its parliamentary majority to block reforms” in state pensions, labor, education and healthcare, as well as impeding criminal investigations into party leader Lee Jae-myung.

Cha Gi-hwan, another one of Yoon’s lawyers, argued that declaring martial law should also be considered justifiable “when the country is approaching a breaking point,” and not just in situations such as war and large-scale disasters stipulated in the Constitution.

According to Cha, the president deemed “the paralysis in state affairs and hybrid warfare being waged by China and North Korea” as “constituting a national emergency” that warranted the imposition of martial law.

Cha’s argument appeared aimed at countering the Assembly’s position that Yoon’s decree failed to meet constitutional requirements.

Yoon’s lawyers previously argued that the impeachment motion against him should be dismissed because his decree was lifted without bloodshed.

Following the conclusion of Tuesday’s hearing, the Constitutional Court’s justices are expected to weigh conflicting testimonies regarding the Cabinet meeting held just before Yoon declared martial law, troop movements at the National Assembly and National Election Commission and the president’s alleged order to military and intelligence officials to arrest high-profile politicians.

A total of 16 witnesses testified before the court from Jan. 23 to Feb. 20, including former and current military officials and government ministers.

The court is expected to issue its final ruling mid-March, or around two weeks after the conclusion of Tuesday’s hearing.

At least six of the eight justices must vote to uphold Yoon’s impeachment motion to effect his removal from office.

If the court rules to dismiss him, a presidential election must be held within 60 days of its decision.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]