Law "Includes State Secrets, Must Be Kept Confidential"
[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] The Center for Military Human Rights has filed an administrative lawsuit demanding the disclosure of the National Assembly Intelligence Committee meeting contents but lost in the first trial. The judgment was based on the exception that the meeting contents may include state secrets and therefore may not be disclosed.
According to the legal community on the 9th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 1 (Chief Judge An Jonghwa) ruled against Kim Hyungnam, Secretary General of the Center for Military Human Rights, in the lawsuit to cancel the refusal of information disclosure filed against the Secretary General of the National Assembly. The court stated, "The Intelligence Committee oversees matters under the jurisdiction of the National Intelligence Service, which handles state secrets related to national security," and "If the meeting is disclosed, there is concern that state secrets or the organization, personnel, and activities of the National Intelligence Service will be exposed, causing significant harm to national security."
Last April, a media outlet reported allegations by then-lawmaker Lee Eunjae, the whip of the Liberty Korea Party (predecessor of the United Future Party), during the National Assembly Intelligence Committee meeting that Lim Taehoon, director of the Center for Military Human Rights, had been investigating military units. It was reported that the civilian civil society organization, the Center for Military Human Rights, had accessed military units and investigated soldiers and commanders. In response, the Center for Military Human Rights requested the Secretary General of the National Assembly to disclose the meeting contents but was refused on the grounds that it was subject to non-disclosure, leading them to file an administrative lawsuit.
The Center for Military Human Rights argued, "Article 50, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates the principle of open meetings," and "The National Assembly Act, which regulates the non-disclosure of Intelligence Committee meetings, violates the Constitution and infringes on the people's right to know and equality rights, making it unconstitutional." However, the court did not accept the Center's claim, stating, "Article 50, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution includes an exception in its proviso that meetings may not be disclosed if a majority of attending members agree or if the chair recognizes it as necessary for national security."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
