South Korea Hears Final Yoon Impeachment Arguments
South Korean parliamentary lawyers have compared President Yoon Suk Yeol to a dictator during final arguments in his impeachment trial, accusing him of unjustifiably imposing martial law.
The Constitutional Court is reviewing the impeachment, with public hearings concluding on Tuesday. Yoon, who faces removal less than three years into his five-year term, is expected to deliver a closing statement before the court’s eight judges deliberate his fate.
The impeachment stems from Yoon’s declaration of martial law on December 3, which parliament claims lacked constitutional justification.
Lee Kwang-beom, a lawyer for parliament, likened Yoon to past autocratic leaders Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan, accusing him of seeking to privatize the country and undermine democracy.
“The moment he declared martial law, he effectively gave up on his position as the president of our democratic republic,” Lee argued.
Yoon defended his actions, stating that the six-hour martial law decree was intended as a warning against the opposition Democratic Party’s abuse of its parliamentary majority.
He denied allegations of ordering military commanders to break into parliament, emphasizing that “nothing actually happened” and no one was harmed.
However, parliament criticized Yoon’s judgment, warning that he might attempt to impose martial law again if reinstated. The decree, which banned political and parliamentary activity, triggered a constitutional crisis and led to the impeachment of the prime minister, who was acting president at the time.
Yoon is currently detained in the Seoul Detention Centre over a separate criminal case, marking the first time a sitting South Korean president has faced a criminal trial.
The Constitutional Court has up to six months to deliver its ruling, with a decision potentially mirroring the swift removal of former President Park Geun-hye in 2017.
If Yoon is removed, a new presidential election must be held within 60 days. The case has plunged South Korea into political uncertainty, raising questions about the future of its democratic institutions.
