SEOUL, South Korea — South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol defended his controversial martial law declaration, asserting that it was a necessary step in governance, while firmly rejecting allegations of rebellion against him. In a resolution to these allegations and the ensuing impeachment threats, Yoon proclaimed on Thursday his determination to “fight to the end” against the charges and investigations that have intensified since the declaration last week.
The opposition Democratic Party quickly criticized Yoon’s remarks, labeling them as “an expression of extreme delusion” and “false propaganda.” That same day, the Democratic Party and other opposition factions initiated a new impeachment motion against Yoon, planning to push for a vote this weekend.
With the opposition holding a majority in parliament, they also moved to impeach and suspend Yoon’s police chief and justice minister as a reaction to the martial law imposition, thereby creating added strain on the president’s already troubled administration. Yoon’s short-lived declaration of martial law, which lasted only six hours before being overturned by a unanimous parliament vote, incited widespread political unrest and mass protests demanding his resignation. During the declaration, hundreds of armed forces were mobilized to encircle the parliament and the National Election Commission, although the situation did not escalate into violence.
In a televised address, Yoon characterized his martial law declaration as a warning aimed at the Democratic Party, which he attacked as “anti-state forces” that sought to use their legislative power to undermine the government and sympathized with North Korea. He expressed that he would defend the constitutional order of South Korea from those he sees as obstructing the government. “The opposition’s claims link my declaration of martial law to rebellion. But is that truly the case?” Yoon said.
According to Yoon, the martial law was a necessary governance action, describing the military’s presence in the National Assembly as a measure intended to maintain order. Contrarily, Democratic Party representative Kim Min-seok dismissed Yoon’s claims, suggesting they reflected a disconnection from reality and an attempt to unearth support from far-right factions. Kim noted that the Democratic Party aims to ensure Yoon’s impeachment motion passes on Saturday.
As of now, Yoon’s political future hangs in the balance. The opposition parties together command 192 seats, just eight votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed in the 300-member National Assembly to effectuate impeachment. A previous impeachment attempt faltered as lawmakers from Yoon’s governing People Power Party opted to boycott the vote.
Yoon’s remarks might further fracture the People Power Party, especially as its chair, Han Dong-hun, openly criticized the statement as “a confession of rebellion.” This drew a hostile reaction from Yoon loyalists, who urged Han to refrain from such talk, despite his calls for party members to support the impeachment.
Opposition members argue that Yoon’s martial law declaration was unconstitutional since the law permits such a declaration only in wartime or other extreme conditions, claiming that the situation did not warrant such measures. They contend that the deployment of troops to the National Assembly to obstruct political activities constituted rebellion, as the constitution does not endow the president with these rights under any scenario.
Currently, law enforcement is probing whether Yoon and other involved parties engaged in rebellion or abuse of power related to the martial law decree. A conviction for rebellion can lead to severe penalties, including capital punishment. The National Assembly is also deliberating a bill aimed at appointing an independent counsel to investigate Yoon without his consent. Meanwhile, Yoon is under a travel ban imposed by the Justice Ministry.
Under South Korean law, a sitting president enjoys immunity from prosecution unless allegations of rebellion or treason arise. This means Yoon is subject to questioning and potential detention over the martial law declaration, although observers remain skeptical that authorities would take such actions due to the risks of conflict with his presidential security detail. Notably, police were denied access to the presidential office to conduct searches last Wednesday.
Yoon’s recent comments marked a significant shift, as just days prior he had issued an apology for invoking martial law, claiming accountability and allowing his party to navigate the current political landscape. This came after the arrest of his former defense minister, Kim Yong Hyun, on allegations tied to a rebellion and abuse of power, with other high-ranking police officials also facing scrutiny for their involvement.
The impeachment motion against the national police chief includes accusations of rebellion and other legal violations pertaining to the police response during the martial law declaration. Similarly, accusations against the Justice Minister relate to his failure to question the legality of Yoon’s actions and for not halting the implementation of the martial law when he had the opportunity.
Kim, who resigned following the lifting of martial law, is reported to have been a close confidant of Yoon, and it has been suggested that he was instrumental in advocating for the martial law. He alleged difficulties with the elections’ integrity in earlier statements, claiming to Yoon that there were vulnerabilities within the National Election Commission’s systems, a subject of contention following cyberattacks last year.
If Yoon faces impeachment, his powers would be suspended pending a decision from the Constitutional Court regarding his potential removal from office. Should he be dismissed, it would necessitate a presidential election within a two-month timeline.
