End prosecution-politicians fight

Politicians and prosecutors are engaged in a war of nerves over the dismantlement of the central investigation department under the Supreme Prosecutors` Office, an act that seems to disregard the public due to focus on selfish interests. The subcommittee on prosecutorial acts under the National Assembly`s judicial reform committee agreed on the revocation of the department`s direct investigation function, prompting prosecutors to resist the move through suspension of a probe into the savings bank fiasco from Friday. The prosecutors` action appears similar to a union strike protesting corporate restructuring.

The parliamentary judicial reform committee agreed in principle on the dismantlement of the investigation department, but has delayed whether to prompt prosecutors to dismiss the department on its own or force the issue by revising the Prosecutors` Office Act at the National Assembly. As the department began targeting the political circle in its probes, the committee set its direction toward the dismantlement of the department in a surprise move. As such, the committee is rightly suspected of trying to dismantle the department to put the brakes on the probes. The prosecutors` claim that politicians are moving to systematically hinder the probe and cover up their wrongdoings is justified to a certain extent.

The suspension of the probe as an act of collective protest is also seen by the public as a move by prosecutors to protect their privilege for whatever reason. The central investigation department, which is under direct control of the prosecutor-general, is considered a representative investigative entity that fights corruption and major vices in society. It has, however, often caused a social stir through overly aggressive probes and ill-advised investigations, in which suspects were eventually cleared of charges. The department is also not free of political influence. It was none other than the prosecutors themselves who presented a case for dismantlement of the department.

In the Busan Savings Bank fiasco, corrupt top managers collected and spent lavishly hard-earned money from the middle and working classes and tried to cover it up by lobbying government watchdogs and politicians. The probe into the bank should not be suspended or scaled down to ensure that the foundation of justice is maintained and consolidated in Korean society. This is a rare opportunity for the department to demonstrate its raison d´être. If politicians seek to abuse their legislative rights to protect themselves, the public will never forgive them. If prosecutors create the misunderstanding that they are using the probe into the savings bank as a means to block the dismantlement of the department, this will not help prosecutors, either.

The dismantlement of the department cannot be concluded immediately, requiring in-depth discussions in conjunction with the proposed setup of a special investigation agency. The Special Committee on Prosecutorial Reform claims that the special department at district prosecutors’ offices can serve the role of the central investigation department. Given that even the department that is directed by the prosecutor-general, whose two-year term is guaranteed, is susceptible to political pressure, chiefs of district prosecutor offices, who are wary of transfer and promotion, can hardly be free from political influence. Prosecutors also need to reflect on why the country has earned the nickname "Republic of Prosecutors" in that they are considered a power elite focused only on their privilege and resistant to reform.