Ruling party feud distracts from prosecution reform

A widening rift is emerging within the ruling camp as some hard-line lawmakers push to overhaul the government’s prosecutorial reform plan. Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Yong-min said on the 10th that the government proposal “contains serious risks that could undermine the purpose of prosecutorial reform.” He maintained his hard-line position despite President Lee Jae-myung urging the previous day that reform should not treat everyone as a target. In response, the Democratic Party’s floor leadership said on the 11th that branding a carefully considered government proposal as anti-reform amounts to undermining the government itself.

The bills to establish a Public Prosecution Office and a Serious Crimes Investigation Office, which the government announced for legislative notice on the 3rd, are based on an initial proposal released in January and incorporate revisions requested by the Democratic Party. The number of crime categories to be investigated by the new agency was reduced from nine to six, and the previously divided investigative personnel structure was consolidated into a single category of investigators. The Democratic Party confirmed the framework as its official party position during a general assembly of lawmakers last month. To reach that decision, the party convened six separate caucus meetings to gather lawmakers’ views. The demands from hard-liners effectively amount to rejecting the entire coordination process between the party and the government.

Hard-line lawmakers have also taken issue with a provision that designates the head of the Public Prosecution Office as the prosecutor general. Many legal experts note that Article 89 of the Constitution explicitly refers to the prosecutor general, raising concerns that using a different title could invite constitutional challenges. The title itself is not the decisive factor that will determine the success or failure of prosecutorial reform. Hard-liners are also calling for the complete abolition of prosecutors’ authority to conduct supplementary investigations, a provision not included in the latest government proposal. Yet such authority may still be necessary, at least in limited form, to prevent police from burying cases and to ensure the completeness of indictments.

Only a small minority of ruling party lawmakers continues to oppose the reform plan. Their stance has fueled confusion by echoing the most extreme demands of hard-line supporters who insist that prosecutorial power must be completely stripped away. As a result, some supporters of the ruling camp have even labeled President Lee a “traitor” online. Amid the controversy, a YouTube channel run by Kim Ou-joon circulated claims of a supposed deal in which President Lee would grant prosecutors supplementary investigation authority while prosecutors would drop charges against him. Lawmakers aligned with Lee dismissed the allegation as a conspiracy theory, but the internal dispute has continued to intensify.

Meanwhile, discussion of the reform’s original objective has been pushed aside. The overhaul was intended to reshape the criminal justice system in ways that strengthen victims’ rights and safeguard human rights. Because the reform represents a comprehensive overhaul of a system that has existed for 76 years, the governing camp bears responsibility for completing the institutional framework before the new prosecution and investigation bodies are scheduled to launch in October. That preparation is essential to minimize gaps or confusion in investigation and prosecution. Instead of working together to address these tasks, political leaders are spending time on unproductive disputes far removed from the core purpose of the reform. In the end, the public is likely to bear the consequences.