Rival Parties Clash Over Special Prosecutor Bill on Manipulated Indictments at Judiciary Committee

DP: "Manipulated Investigations Demand Special Prosecutor,"

PPP: "Why Special Prosecutor Instead of CIO?... Unconstitutional Concerns"

Authority to Maintain Prosecution Becomes Key Point of Contention

A heated debate between the ruling and opposition parties took place at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly on May 6 over the “Special Prosecution Act on Fabricated Prosecution by the Yoon Suk-yeol Administration.” The Democratic Party of Korea emphasized the necessity of passing the special prosecution bill, citing evidence of fabricated investigations and indictments by the prosecution, while the People Power Party criticized the bill as containing unconstitutional elements.

At the plenary session of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on May 6, the ruling and opposition parties clashed over the special prosecution bill. Assemblywoman Jeon Hyunhee of the Democratic Party stated, “There are reports confirming that a salmon and alcohol party took place within the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office Human Rights Violation Task Force,” adding, “The investigative authorities must look into these matters for possible criminal charges.” She further remarked, “This is a type of state corruption involving high-ranking officials and prosecutors connected to the President.”

Assemblyman Kwak Gyutaek of the People Power Party argued, “If a prosecutor has fabricated an indictment, it constitutes abuse of authority, and in such cases, the investigation should be conducted by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). The CIO should be entrusted with the investigation, so why set predetermined answers and, after a parliamentary investigation, hand it over to a special prosecutor?” He questioned, “In a normal country, shouldn’t such suspicions be referred to the CIO?”

In particular, the inclusion of the power to maintain prosecution within the special prosecutor’s mandate became a major point of contention.

Chairwoman Young-Kyo Seo is striking the gavel at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee plenary session held at the National Assembly on the 6th. Photo by Yonhap News

Assemblyman Kim Dongah of the Democratic Party noted, “All recently passed special prosecution acts grant the special prosecutor the authority to maintain prosecution.” Assemblyman Yoon Sanghyun of the People Power Party countered, “Even though the President enjoys criminal immunity under Article 84 of the Constitution, after leaving office, the President must be subject to trial. Allowing the special prosecutor to cancel indictments would fundamentally prevent any possibility of holding former presidents accountable,” criticizing the bill as such.

Assemblywoman Na Kyungwon of the People Power Party criticized, “Justice Minister Jung Sungho stated at the end of last year that only the prosecutor in charge should request the withdrawal of an indictment in court, but recently he has said this is a matter for legislative judgment. The special prosecution act proposed by the Democratic Party is filled with unconstitutional provisions.”

Assemblyman Kim Gipyo of the Democratic Party said, “The special prosecution act only emphasizes indictment withdrawal, but the essence of the special prosecutor is to uncover fabricated investigations by the prosecution. Parliamentary investigations do not have investigative authority, so suspicions must be investigated by an agency with investigative powers.” He refuted the argument that granting the special prosecutor the authority to maintain prosecution is unconstitutional, stating, “It is natural for the prosecutor in charge of the investigation and the trial prosecutor to be separate individuals. I do not understand why this is being labeled as double jeopardy.”

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