South Korea’s Constitutional Court ruled Feb. 27 that the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) has no authority to audit the National Election Commission (NEC), raising concerns that the election watchdog will now operate without external oversight.
The ruling comes amid growing public calls for greater scrutiny of the NEC following allegations of nepotistic hiring practices and mismanagement of election processes. Critics argue that the court’s decision effectively shields the commission from accountability.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the NEC is an independent constitutional body and, therefore, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the BAI. The court emphasized that the NEC was created to safeguard elections from government interference, particularly following the fraudulent March 15, 1960, election, which triggered a national crisis in democratic governance. Since the BAI is under the president’s office, the court reasoned, it cannot audit the NEC.
The BAI had argued that under the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, only the National Assembly, the judiciary, and the Constitutional Court are explicitly exempt from audits. However, the court dismissed this interpretation, stating that the Constitution itself defines the BAI’s audit authority as being limited to administrative agencies. Since the NEC, like the Constitutional Court, is a constitutional body rather than an administrative agency, it is not subject to BAI oversight.
Legal experts criticized the ruling, arguing it contradicts legislative intent. Jang Yong-keun, a professor at Hongik University, pointed out that legislative records from the enactment of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act include discussions on why the NEC was excluded from audit exemptions. At the time, lawmakers noted that the NEC had strong administrative characteristics, which justified its omission from the exemption list. He added that if lawmakers had intended to exclude the NEC, they could have amended the law over the past three decades.
A key issue in the case was whether the BAI could audit the NEC’s general administrative functions, such as personnel management, without infringing on its political independence in election-related matters. The Constitutional Court ruled that since the BAI has no jurisdiction over the NEC, auditing hiring practices or workforce management would also constitute an overreach.
Some legal experts argue that the ruling effectively grants the NEC immunity from scrutiny. Huh Young, a professor at Kyung Hee University, noted that personnel issues fall under administrative management rather than election oversight. “If this ruling stands, no external body will be able to investigate any allegations against the NEC,” he said.
In response to concerns over the lack of oversight, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the NEC is still subject to parliamentary investigations and law enforcement probes. It also noted that the commission established an internal audit committee in January 2024, consisting of six external members and one internal representative.
However, critics remain skeptical. “Law enforcement agencies often struggle to secure search warrants without clear evidence of wrongdoing, and lawmakers, who are monitored by the NEC during elections, may be reluctant to impose stricter oversight,” Jang said. Cha Ji-na, a professor at Korea University, added that if the NEC’s internal oversight mechanisms had been effective, nepotistic hiring scandals would not have occurred in the first place.
Meanwhile, speculation has emerged that the timing of the court’s ruling may have been influenced by the BAI’s investigation schedule. The BAI released its findings on alleged nepotistic hiring practices within the NEC on the same day as the court’s decision. The Constitutional Court denied any coordination, stating that the ruling’s release date was determined independently through judicial deliberations.
