The power struggle intensifies among the investigative bodies due to Yoon’s martial law

SEOUL – Investigation into South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol controversial declaration of martial law on December 3 descended into a jurisdictional tug-of-war between prosecutors, police and anti-corruption agencies in South Korea, raising concerns about the clarity and effectiveness of the investigation.

At the center of the dispute is the Corruption Investigation Bureau for Senior Officials (CIO), which rejected a request from the prosecutor’s office to hand over all files related to the declaration of martial law. Instead, the IOC invoked its legal authority under the Bureau of Corruption Investigation Act for High-ranking Officials to require the prosecution to transfer the overlapping cases to the IOC.

“The prosecutor’s request was to hand over the case, not to investigate it together,” an IOC official said. “Rather, it was a situation where the CIO could request a transfer, so I communicated with the prosecutor’s office in that direction.”

But prosecutors say they proposed a joint investigation with the IOC, a claim the IOC disputes. Both agencies remain deadlocked, with prosecution and police reportedly reviewing the legal grounds for the IOC’s transfer request.

Meanwhile, prosecutors investigating the Dec. 3 martial law emergency launched a criminal investigation against the Defense Counterintelligence Command and others by force on Dec. 9.

The special prosecutor’s investigation team probing President Yoon’s brief statement on martial law has announced that it is conducting raids against the Defense Counterintelligence Command starting on the morning of December 9 in a joint investigation with military prosecutors.

More than 50 military prosecutors and investigators secure martial law-related material at counterintelligence offices. The search warrants were issued by military prosecutors at a military court.

The special prosecutor’s team also called former military special warfare commander Kwak Jong-geun as a witness on charges of insurrection against former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun.

Mr Kwak is being investigated for deploying troops to the National Assembly during the martial law incident. He claims former minister Kim ordered lawmakers removed from the assembly hall, a directive Mr Kwak says he refused, saying it was illegal.

Prosecutors and police also imposed a travel ban on former Home and Security Minister Lee Sang-min.

The National Police Agency’s special task force on martial law confirmed the emergency measure, while the prosecutors’ special investigation headquarters simultaneously coordinated the travel ban through the Ministry of Justice.

Lee, a key figure in the case and a former high school junior of Mr. Yoon, will now be questioned as a suspect. He is said to have played a significant role in the martial law decision alongside Kim, who proposed the declaration, and General Yeo In-hyung, the commander of the Counterintelligence Command, who carried it out.

South Korea’s National Bureau of Investigation has officially listed President Yoon as a suspect in its investigation into the controversial Dec. 3 declaration of martial law. The police would be considering the imposition of a travel ban on the president in the ongoing investigation.

During a briefing on December 9, an official said a travel ban was “under review”. “We are comprehensively considering factors such as the ability to travel abroad and will take a decision accordingly,” the official said.

The police also stress that the investigation into the insurgency falls entirely under its jurisdiction. The National Police Agency has already formed a specialized team to look into the allegations against President Yoon and high-ranking officials, including Kim and Korea’s national police chief Cho Ji-ho.

Observers warn that jurisdictional battles between the agencies could complicate the investigation into Mr. Yoon and his associates, who face charges ranging from insurrection to abuse of power. Overlapping investigations risk duplicating efforts and slowing the fact-finding process, especially as each agency competes for dominance.

Legal experts note that the IOC’s invocation of its statutory authority to request case transfers could escalate tensions between the agencies. Under the IOC Act, investigative agencies are required to comply with transfer requests if the IOC claims jurisdiction, but implementation of the law has often been controversial. KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK