Home > Opinion > Editorials

Presidential order on investigation team raises questions of improper intervention

Published: 14 Oct. 2025, 00:00

Lim Eun-jung, the newly appointed chief prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, delivers her inaugural address during a ceremony at the office in Songpa District, Seoul, on July 4. [YONHAP]

President Lee Jae Myung has drawn controversy after directly ordering the formation of a new investigation team into alleged interference in a customs drug case. On Dec. 12, he instructed Seoul Eastern District Prosecutor General Lim Eun-jung, who is overseeing the probe, to conduct a “thorough and impartial investigation without sanctuary,” and to add more prosecutors if necessary.

Lee went further, ordering that Baek Hae-ryong, a police superintendent and the whistle-blower who first raised the allegations of outside pressure, be seconded to the team. For a president to intervene in a specific case — bypassing the justice minister and the prosecutor general — is highly unusual and raises concerns of inappropriate interference. People Power Party (PPP) chief spokesperson Park Sung-hoon said, “The moment the president designates a specific case and sets investigative guidelines, the independence and fairness of the prosecution are already compromised.” His criticism has merit.

The case traces back to January 2023, under the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration. Two members of a Malaysian drug ring managed to pass through Incheon International Airport carrying large quantities of narcotics, a fact uncovered later in a police investigation. Superintendent Baek, then leading the case, obtained testimony from one suspect claiming that customs officials had assisted them. He expanded the probe into the customs service but said he later received external pressure to “leave out the customs angle” in his reports. After refusing, he alleged that he was demoted in retaliation.

If true, this would be a serious matter. It is essential to uncover the full truth behind incidents that raise public suspicion, and any officials who exerted improper pressure must be held accountable. Yet the president’s direct involvement in an ongoing case is a separate issue.

Article 8 of Korea’s Prosecutors’ Office Act stipulates that the justice minister may direct and supervise the prosecutor general only in regard to specific cases. This means neither the president nor the minister can directly instruct front line prosecutors or district offices. As Reform Party leader Lee Jun-seok noted on his Facebook page, “If the president gives concrete investigative orders, it is a clear violation of the Prosecutors’ Office Act.” Given his legal background, President Lee likely understands this provision, which makes an official explanation from the presidential office necessary.

Equally troubling is the president’s directive to include Superintendent Baek on the investigation team. It defies common sense for an individual directly connected to a case to participate in its investigation. Such involvement would undermine objectivity and public trust.

The Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office reportedly sent a request to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on Dec. 13 asking for approval to expand the team and determine its size. Even if additional investigators are assigned, Baek should be excluded to preserve credibility. Only then can the public trust the eventual outcome of the probe.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.