A lawmaker from the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) leveled accusations during a party meeting on Dec. 16, specifically naming Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, Gangwon Province Gov. Kim Jin-tae, Incheon Mayor Yoo Jeong-bok, Daegu Mayor Hong Joon-pyo, and North Gyeongsang Province Gov. Lee Cheol-woo. The lawmaker questioned whether these local government leaders had supported martial law, citing reports that they held emergency response meetings and shut down their offices on the night martial law was declared. The lawmaker argued that such actions suggest they bear some responsibility for the situation.
However, asserting that emergency response meetings held during martial law indicate complicity is a flawed argument. In times of crisis, failing to convene such meetings could be deemed a dereliction of duty. The DPK is undoubtedly aware of this, yet it has chosen to single out these officials, all affiliated with the ruling People Power Party (PPP). This appears to be a calculated effort to damage the reputations of potential PPP presidential candidates in anticipation of a possible early presidential election. This tactic aligns with the broader strategy of leveraging the martial law incident to bolster DPK leader Lee Jae-myung’s presidential ambitions. Similar maneuvers to enhance Lee’s prospects are likely to continue.
On the same day, the DPK escalated its pressure on the Constitutional Court, which is currently deliberating impeachment proceedings. A senior party official called for public involvement, stating, “The Constitutional Court’s ruling to remove the president must also reflect the will of the people,” and urged protests outside the court. Such efforts to influence judicial outcomes through public demonstrations raise questions about whether this approach significantly differs from President Yoon Suk-yeol’s alleged consideration of martial law. The Constitutional Court must remain independent, resisting both political influence and public pressure, and issue rulings based strictly on legal principles.
Meanwhile, DPK lawmakers intensified threats to impeach Acting President Han Duck-soo. They warned that Han could face impeachment if he vetoes DPK-backed legislation or uses his authority to make unilateral appointments. The message is clear: the DPK seeks to diminish the acting president’s independence and render him effectively subservient to its agenda.
