Police fences are set up near President Yoon Suk Yeol’s official residence on Monday, the same day an arrest warrant was sought for Yoon by the joint investigation unit. (Yonhap)
Police fences are set up near President Yoon Suk Yeol’s official residence on Monday, the same day an arrest warrant was sought for Yoon by the joint investigation unit. (Yonhap)

Arrest warrant sought for sitting president for first time in constitutional history

A joint investigation team said Monday that it will seek an arrest warrant for South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived declaration of martial law early in the month, after he snubbed three previous summonses to be questioned.

The joint investigative unit, consisting of the Korean National Police Agency’s National Office of Investigation, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials and the Criminal Investigation Command of the Defense Ministry, stated Monday that it filed the request with the Seoul Western District Court at midnight on Sunday.

Investigators stated that the request was filed under allegations of insurrection and abuse of power connected to Yoon declaring martial law on Dec. 3. Yoon has denied all allegations, saying his declaration of martial law was not an act of insurrection but an “act of governance” meant to warn the parliament for abusing legislative power.

This is the first time in Korea’s constitutional history for an investigative agency to file an arrest warrant for a sitting president.

Though former presidents -- including Roh Tae-woo, Chun Doo-hwan, Park Geun-hye and Lee Myung-bak -- have been arrested in the past, investigative actions were only taken after they left office.

This is mainly due to Article 84 of the Constitution, which dictates that a president in South Korea is immune to criminal prosecution while in office, except in cases of insurrection or treason. Given that insurrection charges are explicitly excluded from the scope of the nonprosecution privilege, Yoon's case can be investigated and prosecuted by law.

Throughout the investigations that have unfolded since Dec. 3, Yoon has been identified as the central figure in the martial law declaration. Multiple officials who underwent questioning testified that Yoon not only oversaw the drafting of the martial law proclamation, but also issued orders for troops to be stationed at the National Assembly building to stop lawmakers from voting down the decree, and to seize computer servers from the National Election Commission.

Based on the prosecution’s findings announced Friday, Yoon also allegedly gave orders that included, “Break down the National Assembly’s doors with guns if you have to” and “Drag all the lawmakers out of the National Assembly now,” on the day martial law was declared.

The court is expected to determine whether to issue an arrest warrant for Yoon after reviewing whether his insurrection charges can be substantiated, and whether he refused to comply with the CIO’s summons without just cause. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, suspects can be arrested if there is reasonable suspicion they have committed a crime, if they have failed to respond to a summons without a valid reason, or if there is concern they will not comply in the future.

In response to the joint investigation unit’s move, Yoon’s legal representatives stated that they had submitted a document of opinions to the court and a notice of the appointment of lawyers on Monday.

Yun Gap-geun, one of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal representatives, speaks to the press after the pretrial hearing at the Constitutional Court of Korea in Jongno-gu, central Seoul, Friday. (Yonhap)
Yun Gap-geun, one of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal representatives, speaks to the press after the pretrial hearing at the Constitutional Court of Korea in Jongno-gu, central Seoul, Friday. (Yonhap)

Yun Gap-geun, one of Yoon’s legal representatives, told Yonhap News Agency on Monday that Yoon does not have any reason to comply with the CIO’s orders. The legal team claims the CIO holds the authority to only investigate allegations regarding abuse of authority, which they argue insurrection does not fall under. The CIO has said it can also pursue offenses directly taken by suspects.

The court is expected to review documents submitted by the joint investigation unit and Yoon’s legal representatives to determine whether the CIO’s investigation is legally valid. The arrest warrant request could be denied or dismissed if the court concludes the CIO lacks jurisdiction to investigate Yoon on charges of insurrection.