[Reporter’s Notebook] CIO Must Prove Its Reason for Existence

Only Two Detained and Six Prosecuted in Five Years
Performance Needed to Overcome Incompetence Criticism

"Two people detained and six cases prosecuted in five years. This is worse than a local police substation."

At last month's National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee audit, both the ruling and opposition parties criticized the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) in unison. This was in stark contrast to their clashes on almost every other issue. If the Prosecutors’ Office is abolished next year, the CIO will become the only permanent investigative agency with both investigative and prosecutorial powers. However, its performance is lackluster compared to its status.

Amidst this, on November 1, Odongun, head of the CIO, was summoned as a suspect by the special prosecutor's team investigating the Chae Sangbyeong case for alleged cover-up within his own organization. He is accused of failing to notify the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office for about a year regarding the case of former Deputy Chief Prosecutor Song Changjin’s perjury before the National Assembly. Although Odongun explained that it was a "normal part of the investigative process," the questioning lasted over 13 hours, and the special prosecutor’s team is deliberating whether to request a detention warrant. The mere fact that the head of an investigative agency appeared as a suspect highlights the current state of the CIO.

With the amendment to the Government Organization Act, the Prosecutors’ Office will be abolished from September next year, and the prosecution will be split into the Serious Crimes Investigation Office and the Public Prosecution Office. In this structure, the CIO has survived without belonging to either side. The problem is that it has failed to prove why its authority is necessary. Regarding recent investigations, such as the case involving Judge Ji Guyoun of the Seoul Central District Court, the CIO has stated, "We are making progress step by step. Please wait and see," but doubts about its investigative capabilities are not likely to be resolved overnight. Recently, the Ministry of Justice decided to investigate the "Kunjin Buddhist Monk’s cash band loss allegations" and "Coupang severance pay non-prosecution external pressure allegations" through a permanent special prosecutor, leading to claims that the CIO has effectively been sidelined.

The legal community is split in its diagnosis. Some say there was no need to intervene because the CIO did not challenge the administration; others argue that its lack of capability made reform discussions unnecessary from the start. Either way, it is a painful reality for the CIO. The CIO is not a regular administrative body but an exceptional organization established by special law. Given its structure-without regular reporting of investigation results or external supervision-if its prosecutors and investigators had sufficient capabilities, it could have become "the most formidable organization." In reality, however, the CIO is criticized as "having no reason to exist" and as a "tax drain."

The purpose of establishing the CIO was clear: to check corruption among high-ranking officials and create an accountability system without internal cover-ups. However, the CIO has become the subject of scrutiny rather than the agent of oversight. Public distrust has grown immensely. The CIO must focus solely on investigations and institutionalize both external oversight and internal checks to fulfill its responsibilities. The only way for an organization with such immense authority to survive is to prove its own reason for existence.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.