On Tuesday, South Korea’s Constitutional Court heard the final oral arguments in the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The court’s ruling on whether Yoon will be reinstated or removed from office is anticipated by mid-March.
Yoon has firmly denied any wrongdoing regarding his martial law declaration made on December 3. In his closing remarks, he defended the proclamation, asserting it was a “proclamation that the nation was facing an existential crisis.” He emphasized that “external forces, including North Korea, alongside anti-state elements within our society” were “collaborating to pose serious threats to our national security and sovereignty.”
The National Assembly, controlled by the liberal opposition, impeached Yoon, a conservative leader, following his brief martial law decree on December 3. The Assembly accused Yoon of implementing this extraordinary measure, which is typically reserved for national emergencies or wartime, without adequate justification.
In his statement, Yoon expressed that he “could no longer ignore a do-or-die crisis facing this country” and argued that he sought to inform the public about the “anti-state acts of wickedness by the massive opposition party,” urging citizens to intervene through their scrutiny and vigilance.
Yoon claimed that the opposition parties obstructed a revision to an anti-espionage law, thereby hindering the prosecution of foreign nationals involved in espionage against South Korea. “This was never a decision made for my personal benefit,” he reiterated during the trial.
The ruling People Power Party (PPP) has advocated for an amendment to the law to extend its reach from targeting “enemy states” to encompass “foreign countries,” citing threats from Chinese espionage. However, the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) has resisted the revision, fearing potential misuse of the legislation.
Last month, Yoon was arrested and indicted on rebellion charges following his martial law declaration, facing severe penalties that could include life imprisonment or even the death penalty.
After announcing martial law, Yoon ordered troops and police officers to the National Assembly, where lawmakers were convening to veto his decree. He asserted that it was not his intention to impede the lawmakers, who voted unanimously against his order, from carrying out their duties. Yoon claimed the deployment of security forces was necessary to maintain law and order.
Yet, some commanders of the dispatched forces informed investigators and assembly hearings that they were instructed to forcibly remove the lawmakers from the assembly.
During the impeachment trial, an opposition attorney expressed intense emotions regarding this approach, stating, “As a citizen and a father, I feel a profound sense of anger and betrayal toward Yoon, who attempted to turn my son into a martial law soldier.”
If the court upholds Yoon’s impeachment, a new election must be conducted within 60 days.
