Impeached South Korean President Yoon Seok-yeol did not attend his first impeachment hearing on Tuesday, reportedly because he feared for his safety, and the Constitutional Court did not discuss most of the issues raised today. It became impossible to deal with it.
Yun was impeached in December for attempting to suddenly impose martial law in the country. On December 3, the conservative Yun appeared on state television and claimed that martial law was necessary because the left-wing Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the National Assembly, was interfering with his legislative policies.
Yun declared, “I am declaring martial law to protect the Republic of Korea from the threat of the North Korean communist army,'' and added, “I will immediately eradicate the unscrupulous pro-North Korean and anti-national forces that plunder the freedom and happiness of our people.'' “I will protect freedom,'' he declared. constitutional order. ”
Martial law lasted only a few hours as MPs rushed into parliament and voted against it. The Diet has the power to veto martial law, but martial law made all political activity illegal, and soldiers surrounded the legislative chamber to prevent lawmakers from convening. They did so anyway, ending the state of martial law.
Immediately after martial law was imposed, Yun's own People Power Party (PPP) leadership also supported his impeachment. After two attempts, Democrats succeeded in starting impeachment proceedings. The impeachment process will install an interim president until the Constitutional Court decides whether to approve or deny the impeached head of state's request for ouster. In late December, the Democratic Party impeached interim President Han Do-soo for delaying impeachment proceedings against Yun, and in early January, thousands of people gathered in Seoul to protest against the impeachment of Han and Yun. The tide of impeachment changed.
For Yoon to be removed from office, the Constitutional Court would need to rule in favor of ending his term. The court has 180 days from the first impeachment vote in Congress on December 14th to vote. decide. The government has the option of reinstating the president, in which case Mr. Yoon may continue his term as if he had never been impeached, or calling a special election within 60 days to remove him from office.
The court held the first hearing on the matter on Tuesday. Mr Yoon chose not to attend, forcing the court to adjourn the hearing after four minutes. The hearing reportedly addressed only a request by Yun's lawyer for him to resign because he previously worked for a progressive legal institution, and a conservative It is reported that he is showing prejudice against Mr. Yoon. According to South Korean authorities, the court unanimously rejected the withdrawal request. United.
Constitutional Court President Moon Hyung-bae subsequently adjourned the hearing, but announced that the court would reopen on Thursday, and this time the hearing would continue regardless of whether Yun attended or not.
of Korea Herald reported Mr. Yoon had originally planned to attend the hearing, but reconsidered on Sunday due to concerns for his safety, his lawyers said. According to the paper, Yoon's lawyer argued that if Yoon appears in court in Seoul's Jongno District, the investigative authorities may attempt to execute the arrest warrant.
In late 2024, authorities issued an arrest warrant for Yun on suspicion of rioting, which was not covered by immunity. Law enforcement authorities attempted to arrest Yun on the same day, leading to a nearly six-hour standoff with the Presidential Security Service (PSS). The PSS argued that executing warrants at the presidential palace was a national security threat because the presidential palace is inherently a military and national security sensitive location. The PSS reportedly brought in military assets, which authorities said made arrests “impossible.”
It was unclear as of press time whether Yoon would attend Thursday's impeachment hearing. Lawyer Yoon Gap-geun said Reporters said that Yoon's legal team will decide on this issue after “comprehensively considering the progress of the trial, future circumstances, requests for witnesses, and proof plans.”
Apart from impeachment proceedings, a special committee of the National Assembly will investigate the declaration of martial law. summoned On Tuesday, Yoon appeared in court as a witness, effectively ordering him to leave the presidential palace and theoretically putting him at risk of arrest. The first hearing in which the committee requested Yoon's testimony is scheduled for January 22nd.
It remains highly unclear whether Mr. Yoon will be at home or in prison at that time. The Office of the Chief Corruption Investigation (CIO), the agency that tried and failed to execute the warrant, meeting On Tuesday, we will discuss with the National Police and PSS the re-execution of warrants and ensuring that no government personnel are harmed in the process. Comments from the three agencies after the meeting did not agree at all on the issue of trying to rearrest Mr. Yun, as the PSS remains resistant to the idea.
Police, caught in the crossfire during the first arrest attempt, convened a meeting. According to to Korea JoongAng Ilbo.
“CIO officials told reporters on Tuesday that although no concrete conclusions were reached, the parties agreed to proceed peacefully with the execution of the warrant.” Junan Reported. The CIO reportedly plans to execute the warrant on Wednesday as well.
However, the PSS announced that it would continue to oppose “illegal warrant executions” as the presidential palace is a “military installation protection zone” and additional approval from the CIO is required to override the protocol.
It appears that the PSS will not receive military support if another arrest is attempted. Capital Defense Force unit tasked with protecting the outside of the presidential palace Confirmed On Tuesday, he said he would not oppose arrests at the scene. Yonhap News reported that the PSS did not recognize this as proper authorization to execute the warrant, saying it would “implement security measures in accordance with due process.”
