SEOUL, South Korea — On Sunday, prosecutors in South Korea officially charged impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol with rebellion due to his brief imposition of martial law. This serious accusation carries the potential for severe penalties, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty if Yoon is found guilty.
This indictment is the latest setback for Yoon, who was already facing significant political upheaval following his decree on December 3, which introduced martial law. This controversial move not only disrupted the political landscape but also rattled the country’s financial markets and tarnished its global reputation. Alongside these legal troubles, the Constitutional Court is in the process of deciding whether to formally remove Yoon from office or restore him as president.
Yoon has the distinction of being the first sitting South Korean president to be indicted. He is currently in custody and will be transported from the detention center to a court in Seoul for trial proceedings, expected to span approximately six months.
According to prosecutors, Yoon’s decision to enforce martial law amounts to rebellion, claiming that he incited riots intended to undermine the Constitution. Yoon’s legal team has strongly criticized this indictment, labeling it “the worst decision” by prosecutors, whom they accuse of attempting to gain favor with political factions eager to see Yoon removed from power.
In a statement, Yoon’s defense team remarked, “Today’s indictment will remain a stain in the history of South Korean prosecutors that cannot be erased.” They reiterated their position that declaring martial law does not equate to rebellion.
Yoon is protected from a majority of criminal prosecutions due to presidential immunity, but this shield does not apply to accusations of rebellion or treason. Under South Korean law, those convicted of leading a rebellion could face the death penalty or life imprisonment.
The conservative Yoon has consistently denied wrongdoing, asserting that his martial law declaration was a necessary governance measure aimed at warning the public about the perceived threats posed by the liberal-controlled National Assembly, which he claims obstructed his political agenda and facilitated the impeachment of key officials. He described the assembly as “a den of criminals” during his announcement.
Following the martial law declaration, Yoon deployed troops and police to the assembly; nonetheless, a sufficient number of lawmakers succeeded in gathering to unanimously reject his decree, leading to its prompt retraction.
This martial law, lasting merely six hours and the first of its kind in South Korea in over forty years, has drawn unsettling comparisons to past authoritarian regimes in the country from the 1960s to the 1980s, when martial law was used to suppress dissent.
While the South Korean Constitution provides the president the authority to declare martial law during times of war or emergencies, experts largely agree that the conditions did not warrant such a declaration when Yoon acted.
Yoon argues that he never intended to interfere with the assembly’s functions and maintains that sending troops was intended solely to preserve order. However, testimonies from certain military leaders involved indicate that Yoon directed them to remove lawmakers to prevent the repeal of his order.
The inquiries into Yoon have deepened the country’s existing internal divides, sparking frequent protests in Seoul. Following a local court’s approval on January 19 for an extension of Yoon’s detention, a riot by his supporters resulted in damage to court property and injuries to police officers, with authorities subsequently detaining dozens.
Prior to his detention, Yoon had resisted pressure to engage with investigators. He was ultimately apprehended on January 15 during a large-scale operation at the presidential compound.
The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials has been leading the probe into Yoon. However, Yoon has declined to appear for questioning, disputing the CIO’s legal mandate to investigate allegations of rebellion. The CIO contends that it has the jurisdiction to investigate rebellion linked to his alleged abuse of power.
On Friday, the CIO submitted Yoon’s case to the Seoul prosecutors’ office, recommending charges of rebellion, abuse of power, and interference with the National Assembly. Prosecutors ultimately indicted Yoon solely on rebellion, given his presidential immunity regarding other accusations.
With several members of Yoon’s cabinet, including the defense minister and the police chief, already facing charges related to the martial law implementation, the ramifications of the investigation are wide-reaching. If the Constitutional Court opts to remove Yoon from office, a national election to select his successor will need to occur within a two-month timeframe. Recent polls indicate a tight race between candidates for both the ruling party and the opposition in a potential presidential by-election.
