SEOUL, South Korea — On Tuesday, South Korea’s impeached president, Yoon Suk Yeol, appeared before the Constitutional Court for the first time, denying accusations that he instructed military personnel to physically remove lawmakers from the National Assembly in a bid to block a vote against his recently imposed martial law decree.
This court appearance marked a significant moment for Yoon, as he is the first sitting president in South Korean history to face detention due to a martial law declaration that created a wave of political instability across the nation. His controversial martial law was swiftly enacted on December 3, resulting in military and police forces surrounding the National Assembly. Nevertheless, many lawmakers managed to gain entry, and they collectively voted to reject his decree, leading to its withdrawal the very next morning.
Yoon, representing conservative views, contended that his deployment of military forces was not intended to impede the assembly’s activities but to send a message to the dominant liberal opposition Democratic Party. He has accused this party of using its legislative majority to disrupt his political initiatives, block his budget proposals, and lead to the impeachment of key officials in his administration. During his martial law announcement, Yoon labeled the assembly as “a den of criminals” hindering government processes, asserting his commitment to purge the government of “shameless North Korea supporters and anti-state elements.”
Contrarily, military leaders involved in the operation have contradicted Yoon’s assertions. Kwak Jong-keun, the commander of a special forces unit, revealed in an assembly testimony that Yoon had directly instructed him to “quickly destroy the door and drag out the lawmakers.” Kwak, however, stated that he did not comply with that command.
When queried by acting Constitutional Court chief justice Moon Hyungbae about whether he ordered the removal of lawmakers, Yoon firmly claimed he did not. He further suggested that lawmakers could have gathered at a later time to address the decree, implying that physical intervention would have incited significant public outrage.
On the issue of a memo about forming an emergency legislative body which was allegedly given to a senior official prior to the martial law imposition, Yoon denied having done so. Clarifying whether such a plot existed could reveal more about his true motives behind the martial law declaration.
The National Assembly proceeded to impeach Yoon on December 14, suspending his presidential powers. The Constitutional Court has until June to reach a decision regarding his formal dismissal or reinstatement, though many observers anticipate an earlier ruling.
Additionally, investigations are underway by law enforcement to determine if Yoon and others had engaged in rebellion, abuse of power, or other criminal acts relating to the martial law decree. Under South Korean law, those found guilty of leading a rebellion can face severe penalties, including life imprisonment or even the death penalty.
Despite early requests for him to participate in questioning, Yoon had remained at his presidential residence in Seoul, while key officials, including his defense minister and police chief, were jailed for their involvement in enforcing martial law. He was eventually detained on January 15, when authorities deployed a substantial force of police and investigators to his residence.
While South Korean presidents enjoy extensive legal immunity during their terms, such protections do not cover charges of rebellion or treason.
The martial law decree has sparked significant concern regarding South Korea’s diplomatic relations and financial sector while tarnishing its reputation as a thriving democracy. Yoon’s defiance following the martial law incident, along with the persistent demands for his resignation from opposition parties, has further exacerbated the divisions within South Korean society.
Following a recent court ruling that extended Yoon’s detention, a group of his supporters violently stormed the court premises, causing damage to property and engaging in clashes with police, resulting in injuries to 17 officers and the arrest of 46 individuals involved in the unrest.
