SEOUL, South Korea — Investigators from South Korea descended upon the presidential residence armed with a warrant to detain impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol due to his brief declaration of martial law. However, they encountered significant resistance from security personnel as large crowds of Yoon’s supporters gathered outside, intent on offering protection.
This incident is emblematic of a political crisis that has gripped South Korea, resulting in the impeachment of two leaders in less than a month. It initially erupted on December 3 when Yoon, frustrated by an opposition-controlled parliament blocking his initiatives, declared martial law and sent troops to encircle the National Assembly.
The parliament swiftly overturned this declaration, voting unanimously to revoke it within hours. Subsequently, Yoon was impeached on December 14, prompting an ongoing criminal investigation into these controversial actions. Despite the gravity of the situation, Yoon remains unyielding, having ignored requests for questioning and pledging to fight to retain his position.
The situation at the presidential residence escalated into a tense standoff four hours after the arrival of investigators and police. Although the anti-corruption agency did not confirm whether investigators managed to enter the residence, reports indicated clashes occurred as they confronted the presidential security team.
Seok Dong-hyeon, one of the lawyers representing Yoon, acknowledged that investigators reached the residence but doubted they could effectuate the president’s detention. He denounced the agency’s approach as “reckless” and indicative of a blatant disregard for the law.
The South Korean Defense Ministry confirmed that investigators successfully navigated past military guards stationed at the residence’s grounds. Meanwhile, the presidential security service refrained from commenting on their actions or intentions regarding the attempted detention.
The standoff prompted the Democratic Party of Korea to urge acting leader Choi Sang-mok, who also holds the finance minister role, to order the security team to withdraw. In a fierce statement, Democratic lawmaker Jo Seung-lae cautioned the security chief against participating in what he termed a rebellion, asserting that preventing further chaos is a vital responsibility of the acting leadership.
Addressing supporters gathered outside his residence, Yoon delivered a resolute New Year’s message where he vowed to “fight to the end” against what he calls “anti-state forces.” His lawyers have labeled the detention warrant as “invalid” and “illegal,” suggesting that presidential security forces might apprehend police attempting to enforce it.
Thousands of police formed a blockade around Yoon’s residence, where pro-Yoon demonstrators braved freezing conditions, waving national flags and chanting in support. Fortunately, there were no immediate reports of serious violence.
A warrant for Yoon’s detention was sanctioned by a Seoul court on Tuesday after he repeatedly evaded questioning and prevented searches of his office, which hindered investigations into whether his declaration of martial law constituted rebellion. This warrant is effective for one week, allowing investigators to make subsequent attempts at detaining Yoon if needed.
Earlier, investigators from the anti-corruption agency were spotted loading documents into vehicles as they departed their office in Gwacheon early in the morning. Later footage captured these vehicles maneuvering through an array of police buses that barricaded Yoon’s residence vicinity.
Should investigators manage to detain Yoon, they must either request a formal arrest warrant within 48 hours or release him. Several high-ranking officials linked to Yoon, including his defense minister and police chief, have already faced arrest for their roles during the martial law period.
Lawyer Yoon Kap-keun characterized the detention efforts as illegal and mentioned potential legal actions against the anti-corruption agency. His defense team has argued that the court’s detention warrant lacks validity, contending that the agency lacks the authority to investigate charges of rebellion. They also criticized the court for ignoring legal protections concerning military secrets that require consent for search or seizure.
Additionally, the lawyers claimed police involvement in detaining Yoon would exceed their authority, suggesting they could face arrest from either presidential security or civilians, although specifics were not provided.
Critics have accused Yoon of inciting his supporters to impede attempts at his detention. Under South Korean law, citizens have the authority to arrest anyone obstructing an active crime. The Democratic Party, which was instrumental in Yoon’s impeachment, alleged that the president is attempting to mobilize his supporters to impede his detention, urging law enforcement to execute the warrant without delay.
Yoon’s lawyer has filed a motion with the Seoul Western District Court seeking to block both the detention and search warrants, asserting they violate constitutional and criminal law. Following the National Assembly’s vote to impeach Yoon, his powers were suspended on December 14 due to his brief declaration of martial law, which stirred up political chaos and disrupted diplomatic efforts, as well as shaken financial markets. The fate of Yoon now rests with the Constitutional Court, which is currently deliberating on whether to affirm the impeachment or restore him to power.
To conclude Yoon’s presidency, at least six out of nine justices on the Constitutional Court must agree. The assembly also impeached Prime Minister Han Duck-soo last week due to his reluctance to fill key vacancies in the Constitutional Court amid the review of Yoon’s case. Under increasing pressure, acting President Choi appointed two new justices, enhancing the likelihood that the court will uphold Yoon’s impeachment. Yoon’s martial law edict was lifted after only six hours when the National Assembly voted overwhelmingly against it, despite efforts by armed soldiers to obstruct the voting process. Yoon has since justified his martial law declaration as a necessary governance measure and a temporary warning against the Democratic Party, which he claims is an “anti-state” entity hindering his legislative agenda.
