The opposition Democratic Party in Korea this month passed a bill to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Mr. Yoon Suk Yeol on charges of rebellion and many other charges related to the declaration of martial law on December 3. . Mr. Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly and waited for the Constitutional Court to consider his removal while Prime Minister Han Duck-soo became interim president.
Acting President of South Korea Han Duck-soo
The Democratic Party also introduced a bill to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations against Mr. Yoon’s wife Kim Keon Hee. With a majority in parliament, the Democratic Party passed the above bills but accused Mr. Han of deliberately delaying their signing, according to Reuters. This party announced that if by December 24 the acting president does not sign the bill, they will immediately initiate the impeachment process of Mr. Han.
“The delay shows that the prime minister has no intention of complying with the constitution and this corresponds to an admission that he is acting as a proxy for the rebel party,” said parliamentary Democratic leader Park Chan-dae said at a meeting on December 23.
Mr. Han is an independent politician and has held leadership roles in Korean politics for 30 years under several presidential administrations. He was appointed prime minister by Mr. Yoon in 2022. Mr. Han said he tried to prevent Mr. Yoon from declaring martial law but apologized for not being able to.
Mr. Park said that any act to delay the investigation as well as the impeachment trial is an extension of the rebellion and an act of conspiracy for the second time.
Despite the above warning, Yonhap news agency quoted a key official in Mr. Han’s office as saying that the bill was unlikely to be considered at a cabinet meeting this week.
Acting President Han Duck-soo has until January 1, 2025 to decide to sign the bills or ask the National Assembly to reconsider.
The ruling People’s Power Party (PPP) called on Mr. Han to veto the bill related to Mr. Yoon because it said it was “clearly unconstitutional”.
