The situation has reached a critical point. Following controversies over trial suspensions, dismissals, and the dismissal of charges, the National Assembly is on the verge of addressing the "manipulated prosecution special investigation" into cases involving the president. This series of actions, utilizing power to eliminate judicial risks, is now approaching its peak.
In summary, the current situation can be encapsulated in one sentence:
“I will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether the investigation that looked into me was flawed.”
However, the principles of law that have endured for centuries stand in stark contrast:
“No one can be the judge in their own case (Nemo iudex in causa sua).”
These two statements are now clashing in South Korea in 2026.
The revised special investigation law targets 12 items, six of which are related to President Lee Jae-myung. Investigations into the North Korean remittance by Ssangbangwool, the Daejang-dong, Wirye, and Baekhyeon-dong developments, the dissemination of false information related to Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong, sponsorship funds for Seongnam FC, witness tampering, and the Gyeonggi Province corporate card incident will all be re-examined.
This does not mean re-evaluating the president's alleged criminal activities. Instead, a separate special prosecutor will investigate whether prosecutors manipulated or concealed evidence, distorted or coerced testimonies, or abused their prosecutorial authority.
Moreover, the ultimate authority to appoint this special prosecutor lies with President Lee.
Once again, I reiterate:
“I will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether the investigation that looked into me was flawed.”
Does this statement sound appropriate in a "rule of law" state?
If there was a manipulated investigation, it must be thoroughly uncovered. If prosecutors manipulated evidence or coerced testimonies, they should face severe consequences. Being the victim does not exempt the president from accountability.
However, this is entirely separate from the question of the president's guilt or innocence.
The solution is straightforward:
“While thoroughly exposing any manipulated investigations, I will allow the court to determine my guilt or innocence after my term ends.”
This is what President Lee should say.
However, President Lee has already publicly labeled his case as one of the “cases suspected of malicious investigative manipulation.” If the president, who has expressed a judgment on his own case, participates in the appointment process of the special prosecutor who will investigate the process that looked into him, stricter conflict of interest avoidance principles must be enforced.
It is also important to note the so-called "theory of elected power superiority." Last year, President Lee stated in a press conference, “In South Korea, there is a clear hierarchy of power,” placing the people at the top and sequentially mentioning directly elected powers and indirectly authorized powers. He also explained that judicial authority is indirectly granted by politics.
However, Article 1 of the Constitution declares that “the Republic of Korea is a democratic republic.” If “democratic” means that the source of power lies with the people, then “republic” declares that such power cannot be owned by any one person or institution. Both the president and the National Assembly are constitutional entities that exercise power entrusted to them by the people.
Winning votes in an election does not automatically grant legitimacy to investigate the prosecutor who looked into one’s own case. A majority in the assembly does not absolve the president from the principles of conflict of interest in the face of personal criminal cases.
If democracy is understood as a system where the power that wins elections stands above others, the separation of powers becomes merely ornamental. If the courts and investigative agencies must be subordinate to the will of elected power simply because they are “unelected,” there would be no reason to have an independent judiciary and investigative bodies in the first place. Once again, I emphasize:
“No one can be the judge in their own case.”
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.