Judiciary Committee Passes Bill Extending Itaewon Special Investigation Committee by One Year
The clock for uncovering the truth behind the Itaewon disaster has been reset for another year.
The National Assembly’s Judiciary Committee passed a revision to the Oct. 29 Itaewon Disaster Special Act during a plenary meeting on the 1st. The revision extends the activity period of the Special Investigation Committee (SIC), tasked with uncovering the truth and preventing recurrence, by one year. According to Yonhap News, the passage leaves only a plenary vote remaining. As the second regular session of the National Assembly under the Lee Jae-myung government opened on the same day, the move is interpreted as the parliament accelerating efforts to finalize legislation related to the disaster.
The National Assembly Judiciary Committee held a plenary meeting on the 1st and passed a revision bill to extend the activity period of the Special Investigation Committee for the truth-finding and prevention of recurrence of the Oct. 29 Itaewon disaster. (Yonhap News report on the 1st)
Reasons the Extension Was Necessary
On the night of October 29, 2022, 159 people were killed in a crowd surge in the Itaewon district of Seoul. Police and prosecutorial investigations focused heavily on penalizing field commanders. However, the question of how information moved up the chain of command and where judgment lapses occurred within government institutions—the issue of state duty—remained largely a task for the SIC.
The Special Act, passed by the National Assembly in January 2024, granted the committee a one-year mandate. This came after lengthy negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties over the introduction of a special prosecutor. Since its launch, the SIC has conducted raids on relevant agencies and interviewed reference persons. The problem was time. Families and civic groups have repeatedly demanded an extension, arguing it was impossible to resolve the mountain of suspicions within the given deadline. This decision is seen as accepting those demands through legislative process.
Core of the Revision and Scope of Application
The core is simple: a one-year extension of the activity period. The scope of investigation targets and power structures remain unchanged. Mandatory investigative measures are also preserved. The committee retains the authority to request search warrants and summon witnesses, as well as to investigate defamation cases targeting victims of the disaster.
If passed by the plenary session, the SIC will continue to examine remaining suspicions during the extended period and compile the results into a report. The findings are expected to serve as a basis for improving safety management systems and subsequent legislation. The start date of the extension and the scale of the operating budget are expected to be finalized after the law is promulgated.
Arguments For and Against
Families and civil society groups have long cited the lack of investigation time as the biggest hurdle. Their logic is that finalizing the extension will reduce blind spots in uncovering the truth. Prior to this, there were no reports of public opposition raised during the Judiciary Committee’s review. The experience of bipartisan agreement at the time of enactment is interpreted to have influenced this extension as well.
Concerns also exist. As the investigation lengthens, questions remain regarding the financial burden and effectiveness. Critics argue that if the clarification of institutional duties is repeated without leading to the punishment of responsible parties or prevention of recurrence, the extension itself could lose its force. The legal community points out that prioritizing issues to be clarified during the extension and transparently disclosing interim results is the way to maintain the organization's trust.
Future Procedures and Prospects
The revision bill will go to the plenary session during this regular National Assembly session for a vote, then proceed to the government for promulgation. The regular session runs for 100 days until early December. As there is no clear pretext for opposition, passage does not appear to face major hurdles. However, delays in processing would widen the gap in the SIC's activities.
October 29 marks the fourth anniversary of the disaster. If legislation is finalized before then, a seamless transition of the truth-finding system is possible. Ultimately, the focal point is not the extension itself, but what that time produces. Assessments suggest that for the lessons of the disaster to remain as institutions, follow-up legislation on preventing recurrence, such as crowd safety management, must accompany the final report.
