South Korea's Impeachment Trial: 11th Hearing of President Yoon Suk-yeol (February 25, 2025)
Overview of the Hearing
- Date: February 25, 2025, 2:00 PM
- Location: Constitutional Court, Supreme Court Hall
- Participants: National Assembly representatives, President Yoon Suk-yeol's defense team, President Yoon Suk-yeol
The 11th and final hearing of the impeachment trial for South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol took place on February 25, 2025. President Yoon delivered his closing statement for 67 minutes, defending the necessity of martial law and addressing allegations of election fraud. The National Assembly representatives countered with strong accusations of constitutional violations and attempted subversion of the democratic republic.
Key Arguments Presented
A. President Yoon Suk-yeol's Closing Statement
1. Justification of Martial Law
President Yoon argued that the "martial law declared on December 3 was fundamentally different from past examples," emphasizing it was a "plea to the public" rather than an oppressive military measure. He clarified that the decision was not for personal gain but to protect national security, asserting, "This was not for Yoon Suk-yeol’s personal benefit."
He further explained that "unarmed troops were deployed" and were immediately withdrawn when the National Assembly passed a motion demanding the end of martial law.
2. Allegations of Election Fraud
President Yoon linked the declaration of martial law to the opposition party's rapid legislative actions, raising concerns about "security flaws in the National Election Commission's electronic systems." He questioned the legal grounds for the impeachment, stating, "I do not understand which part of this constitutes rebellion or a crime."
He argued, "If martial law itself is illegal, why does the law exist, and why is there a dedicated division in the Joint Chiefs of Staff?"
3. Legal Legitimacy of Martial Law
President Yoon defended his actions as "legitimate measures under the Martial Law Act" and framed them as a fulfillment of his "constitutional duty as President." He justified his decision as a "necessary choice to defend national sovereignty against cyber and psychological warfare from China."
B. Statements from President Yoon's Defense Team
1. Cybersecurity Threats from China
Defense lawyer Yoon Gap-geun argued that "China has been conducting psychological and cyber warfare aimed at undermining South Korea’s sovereignty," asserting that martial law was a necessary response to "an extreme crisis situation."
2. Constitutional Duty of the President
The defense emphasized that the power to declare martial law is explicitly stated in the South Korean Constitution, describing it as a "legitimate action to safeguard national security and public order."
C. Arguments from the National Assembly Representatives
1. Criticism from Chang Soon-wook
National Assembly representative Chang Soon-wook accused President Yoon of violating the Constitution while suppressing freedom of speech and opposing political opinions. He argued, "The essence of liberal democracy is to protect political opposition," criticizing Yoon for declaring martial law "45 years after the last declaration" under the pretext of eliminating "anti-state forces."
He asserted that the "martial law order authorized the arrest of political opponents without warrants," accusing Yoon of attempting to "silence political dissent."
2. Accusations from National Assembly Impeachment Manager Jung Cheong-rae
Jung condemned the "armed military occupation of the National Assembly on the night of December 3," labeling it as a "coup d'état." He criticized President Yoon for "betraying his oath to uphold the Constitution" and argued that the impeachment was justified as "no one, including the President, is above the law."
Jung described the aftermath of martial law as "causing political chaos and severe economic damage," stressing the necessity for impeachment.
3. Remarks from National Assembly Attorney Lee Kwang-beom
Attorney Lee called the martial law declaration "an attempt to overthrow the democratic republic and destroy the Constitution," urging for the "swift removal of President Yoon from office." He accused Yoon of being "obsessed with election fraud conspiracies" and "manipulating a narrative of rebellion and impeachment."
D. Reactions from Political Parties
1. People Power Party's Response
The ruling party "found President Yoon’s closing statement persuasive," praising his candidness and sincerity. They noted that his "determination to prioritize national security over his political future was especially impactful."
2. Democratic Party's Response
The opposition party sharply criticized Yoon’s statement as "shameless excuses that refuse to acknowledge rebellion." Democratic Party Spokesperson Cho Seung-rae condemned the speech as "delusional and filled with excuses," arguing it "defied the will of the people."
Next Steps
- Expected Verdict Announcement: Early to mid-March 2025
- The Constitutional Court will deliberate and announce its decision on the impeachment. The verdict is anticipated to have significant political ramifications.
Conclusion
The 11th hearing marked the end of oral arguments in President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment trial. The court’s ruling will be a pivotal moment in South Korean political history, with potential consequences for the nation's democratic institutions and public trust in governance.
댓글
댓글 쓰기