South Korea’s anti-corruption agency, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), has referred its case against impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol to prosecutors, recommending his indictment on charges of insurrection and abuse of power. The charges stem from Yoon’s brief and controversial declaration of martial law on December 3, which was overturned by parliament within hours.
Yoon, who was impeached and suspended from power on December 14, has been detained since January 15 while investigations continue. His detention is set to end on January 28, but prosecutors are expected to ask the court to extend it for another 10 days before formally charging him. This marks the first-ever arrest of a sitting South Korean president.
The CIO alleges that Yoon orchestrated an insurrection by attempting to impose martial law to address what he described as political deadlock caused by the opposition. Testimonies from military officials indicate that Yoon allegedly planned to arrest politicians and considered issuing a second martial law order. Yoon’s defence minister at the time, Kim Yong-hyun, has already been charged with insurrection, alongside several high-ranking military and police officials.
Despite the serious allegations, Yoon has refused to cooperate with CIO investigators, declining their summons and questioning. CIO Deputy Chief Lee Jae-seung criticised Yoon’s lack of cooperation, stating it would be more efficient for prosecutors to take over the investigation.
“Despite the fact that the suspect is under serious allegations that he was ringleader of an insurrection, he continues to be uncooperative to this day, not responding to the criminal justice proceedings and refusing our questioning itself,” Lee told a briefing.
Yoon’s legal team has argued that the CIO lacks the authority to investigate insurrection cases, pointing to the absence of such a provision in the agency’s mandate. They have also called for any criminal proceedings to wait until the Constitutional Court rules on Yoon’s impeachment in a separate trial.
The impeachment trial has seen heated arguments, with Yoon denying accusations that he ordered the arrest of lawmakers or directed emergency budget preparations. His lawyers maintain that the martial law proposal was merely a warning to break the political stalemate, not a serious attempt to seize control.
Former Defence Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who appeared as a witness at the impeachment hearing, echoed this defence, claiming that the limited mobilisation of troops showed there was no genuine intent to enforce military rule. Kim also stated that the martial law proposal stemmed from Yoon’s frustration with the opposition, which he accused of abusing its parliamentary majority.
If indicted, Yoon could face charges of insurrection—a crime from which South Korean presidents do not have immunity. While insurrection is technically punishable by death, South Korea has not carried out an execution in nearly 30 years.
The case highlights the deep political divides in South Korea and raises questions about the balance of power and accountability in the country’s political system. As the impeachment trial and criminal investigation unfold, the nation watches closely to see how the unprecedented case will shape its democratic institutions.
Melissa Enoch
Follow us on:
