South Korea’s Democratic Party and allied opposition parties reignited political tensions on Jan. 9 by reintroducing a special counsel bill to investigate alleged insurrection, sparking fierce debate over its implications for national security and a potential snap presidential election.
The new proposal shifts the authority to nominate special prosecutor candidates from opposition parties to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The opposition parties argued that this and other changes addressed concerns raised by the ruling People Power Party (PPP), which had labeled earlier provisions as “problematic.”
The opposition emphasized that the bill reduces the number of investigators and shortens the investigation period, leaving the PPP with no legitimate grounds for opposition.
However, the PPP continues to oppose the bill, saying it still allows up to 150 days for the investigation and adds new charges, like claims of external subversion. They also criticized a rule letting the special counsel hold media briefings, arguing it could unfairly attack the ruling party.
The PPP also claimed that the Democratic Party is using the bill as a political strategy. They argue the investigation would keep insurrection allegations in the spotlight during the 60-day early presidential election period if the Constitutional Court approves President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment.
Under the revised bill, the chief justice would recommend two candidates for special counsel, and the president—or acting president—would select one. This marks a significant departure from the previous proposal, which allowed the Democratic Party and its ally, the Rebuilding Korea Party, to each nominate a candidate. By transferring the nomination authority to the chief justice, the opposition has handed this responsibility to a neutral third party.
The revised bill also removed the opposition’s ability to exercise a veto over certain nominees, a measure that some within the opposition had supported. In addition, the number of investigators was reduced from 205 to 155, and the maximum investigation period, including preparation time, was shortened from 170 days to 150 days. Kim Yong-min, the deputy floor leader of the Democratic Party, noted that the changes addressed most of the concerns raised by the government and the PPP.
Despite these revisions, the bill broadens the investigation’s scope significantly. It includes allegations against President Yoon and other high-ranking officials for actions such as deploying troops to conflict zones, resuming propaganda broadcasts near the North Korean border, and distributing anti-North Korea leaflets. These actions are alleged to have been part of an effort to provoke inter-Korean tensions and create conditions for declaring martial law.
One specific allegation involves suspicions that the government considered sending military observers to Ukraine amid reports of North Korean involvement in the war there. While the Democratic Party raised concerns about such actions, the government has denied any plans to dispatch military personnel to Ukraine. Similarly, the resumption of loudspeaker broadcasts near the border has been described by military officials as a response to North Korean provocations.
The revised bill adds new investigation targets, including allegations of kidnapping, torture, and assassination attempts against politicians, as well as authorizing armed soldiers to open fire. It also retains provisions allowing investigators to raid military and intelligence agencies, despite earlier concerns raised by the Supreme Court about national security risks. PPP legal adviser Joo Jin-woo criticized the bill, saying its broad scope effectively grants the special counsel unlimited investigative powers.
The investigation period has become a key point of contention. If the special counsel begins its work next month, the inquiry could last until July, spanning up to 150 days.
If the Constitutional Court upholds President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment, a snap presidential election would need to be held within 60 days. This overlap raises concerns that the special counsel’s activities could dominate the campaign period, keeping the ruling party under constant scrutiny over insurrection-related allegations.
The clause allowing the special counsel to hold regular media briefings has further fueled the PPP’s concerns. They argue that these updates could unfairly sway public opinion and put their party at a disadvantage during the election.
