A group of former prosecutors has voiced strong opposition to the newly established ‘Prosecution Future Council’ (검찰미래위), arguing that it infringes upon the independence of the judiciary and undermines the rule of law.
Concerns Over Judicial Independence and Rule of Law
The former prosecutors, including Hong Seong-wook, Shin Bong-soo, and Kim Yu-cheol, who investigated the “Ssangbangwool illegal wiretapping” case, and Song Gyeong-ho, who led the investigation into the “Daejang-dong development corruption” case, issued a joint statement on July 8th. They asserted that the council’s charter includes clauses that are “poisonous” and could lead to the erosion of legal principles.
The Ministry of Justice established the Prosecution Future Council last month, tasking it with investigating alleged human rights abuses by prosecutors in past cases. The council has prioritized seven cases, including the three high-profile cases related to the former president that were previously overturned. Fact-finding teams have been temporarily set up at the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, with over ten prosecutors assigned to these cases.
Criticism of the Council’s Structure and Authority
The former prosecutors labeled the council a “de facto special committee for the dismissal of public officials.” They pointed out that the council can recommend whether to maintain or dismiss public officials based on the findings of its fact-finding teams, a power that ultimately rests with the Minister of Justice.
They criticized the council’s establishment as an attempt by the executive branch to circumvent legislative gridlock. The move comes after political consensus proved difficult on a bill to abolish the prosecution’s investigative powers, which faced objections regarding its constitutionality and legality.
Furthermore, the former prosecutors emphasized that the council and its fact-finding teams are attempting to intervene in ongoing retrials. They highlighted that most of the cases prioritized by the council are still under appeal, with three presidential cases pending a single-judge ruling.
Interference in Judicial Processes
The prosecutors argued that allowing the fact-finding teams to investigate individuals connected to ongoing cases, including those who have already testified or are scheduled to testify, and to review investigative materials, directly violates the principle of separation of powers. They warned that this could unduly influence the judiciary’s independent retrials, posing a significant risk.
Regarding the fact-finding teams’ authority to conduct necessary investigations, including the seizure of evidence, the former prosecutors stated, “While claiming to conduct external investigations, they are effectively being granted supra-legal coercive investigative powers without proper legal grounds.” They condemned this as a “clear abuse of power that violates the principles of due process.”
Concerns Over Political Neutrality
The group also raised concerns about the political neutrality and independence of the council. They noted that Kim Su-hong, a prosecutor from the prosecution reform task force under the Ministry of Justice, has been appointed to head the fact-finding teams. This appointment, they argued, makes it difficult to view the council as politically neutral, as external members appointed by the Minister of Justice could receive and review investigative details, effectively making it a “subordinate investigation” under the Minister.
The former prosecutors concluded by stating that if the Prosecution Future Council and its fact-finding teams proceed with “dangerous and illegal actions” based on grounds lacking legal basis and in clear violation of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, they will respond with appropriate legal measures.
