[Reporter’s Notebook] Pathetic Power Struggle Over the ‘Leader of the Rebellion’ Investigation

Prosecution, Police, and HOICA Each Go Their Own Way
Separate Custody and Evidence... Overlapping Search Warrants
Wasting Time When Urgent Truth-Finding Is Needed
Agencies Must Cooperate and Accelerate Investigation Before Special Prosecutor Appointment

‘Leader of the Rebellion Yoon Seok-yeol’.

The prosecution, police, and the High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (HOICA), who are investigating the December 3 emergency martial law incident, are targeting the same individual in the end. Multiple rounds of suspect and witness interrogations, searches and seizures, and arrests attest to this. The prosecution arrested key figures involved in proposing the martial law, including former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun and former Commander of the Defense Security Command Yeo In-hyung, charging them with ‘engaging in important duties of rebellion.’ The police also arrested Police Commissioner Jo Ji-ho and Seoul Police Commissioner Kim Bong-sik on the same charges.

The investigation is a highly refined process. From the citizens’ perspective, the shocking footage of armed martial law troops deployed to the National Assembly, the hall of popular sovereignty, is enough to label the president who ordered it as the leader of a rebellion. However, once the investigation begins, objective testimonies and concrete evidence must support the actions. This is why the prosecution, police, and HOICA have not immediately arrested President Yoon but are instead investigating military and police officials who received orders and conducting searches and seizures at the presidential office and military units. As recently as the 15th, the prosecution requested an arrest warrant for former Army Chief of Staff Park An-soo, who was the martial law commander, and the police urgently detained Intelligence Commander Moon Sang-ho and former Intelligence Commander Noh Sang-won. All these investigations could serve as stepping stones toward President Yoon.

Therefore, the ‘each to their own path’ approach of these agencies’ investigations is concerning. The blade aimed at the president must be sharper than any other. They must prove the charges with irrefutable evidence and hold him accountable before the public. However, the current investigative competition is more likely to hinder the fact-finding process. For example, the prosecution has secured custody of former Minister Kim, but his mobile phone and burner phone are in the police’s possession. Proper investigation is impossible with only one side. The issue of overlapping search warrants for military units submitted to the courts is also a clear waste of time at a moment when speed is crucial.

In fact, public trust in these investigative agencies is relatively low. The prosecution, closely aligned with the president, is suspected of lacking impartiality. Although the National Police Agency’s Criminal Investigation Headquarters somewhat dispelled concerns of ‘self-investigation’ by arresting police leadership, controversy arose when it was revealed they had contact with the Defense Security Command. HOICA has yet to prove its investigative capabilities, raising doubts about whether it can properly handle such a significant case.

This abnormal investigative competition will likely be ultimately resolved by a special prosecutor, as mentioned by the Korean Bar Association. That said, should investigative agencies just stand by until the special prosecutor is appointed? Certainly not. The special prosecutor will not be formally appointed until January next year. Evidence must be secured as much as possible before then to accelerate the special prosecutor’s investigation. During the Park Geun-hye presidential scandal, much evidence was collected before the special prosecutor’s launch, enabling a swift investigation afterward. If the prosecution, police, and HOICA want to uncover the truth of this incident, they must cooperate and speed up the investigation even before the special prosecutor’s appointment. The already exhausted public should not have to watch the investigative agencies’ ‘power struggle’ as well.