SEOUL (The Korea Herald/ANN): With the 11th hearing of South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment trial set for TUesday (Feb 25), both sides are gearing up for the statements justifying their respective claims on his insurrection and power abuse charges.
The legal representatives of the National Assembly – who passed the resolution for Mr Yoon’s impeachment in December – held a meeting on Feb 22 to discuss their strategy for the upcoming hearing.
They are expected to focus on what they have said is the illegal and unconstitutional nature of the martial law declaration on Dec 3, and orders made by Mr Yoon in the process.
Mr Yoon’s side, meanwhile, claim that the martial law declaration was within his presidential rights, which was declared as a “warning” to the opposition. It said that the series of impeachments by the opposition-controlled assembly and its readjusting of the state’s budgets pushed the country to the brink of national emergency.
Conflicting views and testimonies
The focal point of the trial has been on whether Mr Yoon declaring martial law on Dec 3 can be considered a legitimate action by a president, and if his orders to have lawmakers and his political opponents arrested actually happened as accused by the Parliament.
Feb 20’s hearing at the Constitutional Court focused on the alleged arrest order, which Mr Hong Jang-won, the first deputy director of the National Intelligence Service at the time of the martial law, had testified on Feb 4 to receiving them and writing them down.
He returned to the court on Feb 20, after asking to testify again after his previous account was questioned, particularly the details of his when and how he took down notes.
Mr Yoon’s lawyers on Feb 20 questioned Mr Hong’s motives on not giving prosecutors the original memo of the people he said he was ordered to arrest, and accused him of trying to hand it over to the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea.
Lawyer Yun Gap-geun asked if the aide to Mr Hong who wrote down the memo was a friend of former ruling People Power Party chairman Han Dong-hoon – one of those supposedly on the arrest list – to which Mr Hong said he had no knowledge of the aide’s personal connections.
Additionally, then Capital Defence Commander Lee Jin-woo reportedly told prosecutors that Mr Yoon told him to “break down the door to Parliament, and drag them (lawmakers) out. Shoot if you have to”.
But asked about this at the hearing on Feb 4, Mr Lee testified that he could not remember.
Mr Yoon denies making orders to arrest politicians or break into the Assembly compound.
In the fifth hearing of the trial on Feb 4, he stressed that “nothing happened”, likening the trial to “chasing the shadow of the moon floating on a lake”.
Mr Lee and Mr Yeo In-hyung — the former defence counter-intelligence command chief who was removed from his post after the martial law — both refused to testify to the Constitutional Court on Mr Yoon’s alleged orders, saying a criminal trial was being conducted on the matter and they would testify then. Mr Yeo did, however, say that he received orders to mobilise the military from then Defence Minister Kim Yong-hyun, Mr Yoon’s close confidant who wrote the martial law decree.
Some 1,500 troops of the South Korean military were mobilised during the martial law period and surrounded the National Assembly, but the President claims that it was merely to maintain order and not to cordon the parliamentary building.
The martial law decree prohibited all manner of political activities including the National Assembly, but there is no clause that grants the president power to restrict the Parliament’s activities.
Mr Yoon claimed that the martial law was initially planned to end in half a day at most, and that the martial law decree was but a formality.
He also claimed that Mr Kim mistakenly added the problematic clause about the Parliament, and that there was no intent to use deadly force.
It was found that the mobilised units were given live ammunition, but the Defence Ministry has said that they were not distributed to individual soldiers.
Martial law was lifted around six hours after being declared, but after the National Assembly convened and unanimously voted to request Mr Yoon to lift it at around 1am of Dec 3.
Mr Yoon accepted the request only at 4.20am, more than three hours after the parliamentary vote.
What will happen on Feb 25 and afterwards?
The 11th hearing will commence at 2pm, and the Constitutional Court’s acting chief Moon Hyung-bae vowed not to put time limits for the final arguments.
The eight justices on the bench will then deliberate whether or not to confirm Mr Yoon’s impeachment.
The court is generally expected to reach a final decision within two weeks of the last hearing, based on precedents of the previous presidential impeachment trials.
Impeachment trials of former presidents Park Geun-hye and Roh Moo-hyun – the former was confirmed and the latter was rejected – each took 14 days and 11 days to be finalised after the last hearing.
Supporters of Mr Yoon and the ruling party have been attacking Mr Moon, with protesters holding demonstrations outside his home and lawmakers accusing him of bias in favour of the opposition and the liberal bloc.
If and when Mr Yoon’s impeachment is confirmed, a presidential election for his successor must be conducted within 60 days.
If the court decides against impeachment, he will return to his post as the President until his term concludes on May 9, 2027. -- THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
