President Lee Jae-myung asks for removal of indictment-withdrawal provision from fabricated-prosecution special counsel bill
President Lee Jae-myung has personally stepped forward to request the removal of the indictment-withdrawal provision from the special counsel law on fabricated prosecutions.
At a press conference held at the presidential office on the 18th, Lee addressed the special counsel bill being pushed by the Democratic Party, saying, "It is right to uncover the truth through a special counsel investigation into cases where malicious investigative manipulation is suspected." At the same time, he asked the National Assembly to "delete the provisions concerning the transfer or disposal of existing prosecuted cases," which are among the controversial elements of the special counsel's authority. The message: he agrees to the special counsel itself, but wants any powers that could benefit him stripped out.
Why the indictment-withdrawal provision became a sticking point
The core issue in the special counsel law is whether the special prosecutor would have the power to take back prosecutions already on trial or finalized in court and withdraw the indictments. Withdrawing an indictment means the prosecution voluntarily retracts charges it has already filed — a powerful measure that effectively erases a trial from existence. The opposition has objected that the provision is a device to end the trials tied to the "five major allegations" surrounding President Lee from his days as a presidential candidate.
The ruling party also felt the burden internally. It appears the calculation was that while preserving the rationale for a special counsel, it could not afford the weakness of a self-exoneration controversy. In the same vein, President Lee drew a line by saying, "Focus only on uncovering the truth," and further declared that "a second term through constitutional amendment is constitutionally impossible, and I have no intention of seeking one." This is interpreted as an attempt to redefine the special counsel not as a means of self-rescue but as a tool to verify the prosecution's investigation.
The ruling and opposition camps are making opposing calculations
The People Power Party is keeping its distance from accepting the president's proposal conditionally. Floor leader Choo Kyung-ho, in rebutting the president's remarks at the press conference, asked, "Can we believe words he was pushed into saying?" He cited past instances where pledges not to use taxpayer money to hold real estate and to waive immunity from arrest were later reversed, criticizing that "in the end, he never once said he would stand trial." The opposition's line is to challenge the very premise of "fabricated prosecutions," regardless of whether the indictment-withdrawal provision is deleted.
On the other hand, some analysis suggests that if the indictment-withdrawal provision is actually removed, the very rationale for the "trial-termination scenario" the opposition has feared disappears. Once the special counsel is limited to uncovering the truth about whether fabrication occurred, its character changes into a pure verification mechanism that scrutinizes flaws in the investigative process. Nevertheless, the People Power Party continues its counterattack strategy with the special counsel card, including officially pushing party policy to introduce a special counsel into the controversy over single-stock leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The ruling and opposition camps are now set for another head-on clash, each wielding their own special counsel bills as leverage.
Legislative process and outlook
The initiative for revising the law lies with the National Assembly. Whether to accept President Lee's request for deletion is a matter for the Democratic Party to decide, and clause-by-clause revisions are expected during review by the subcommittee and the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. If a scaled-down version emerges without the transfer-and-disposal provisions, the prospects for ruling-opposition consensus on the special counsel's practical effectiveness improve compared to before. Conversely, if the opposition maintains opposition votes at the level of the original bill, the matter moves to a floor vote, and the political burden is shared again between the two camps.
The key variable is the binding force of President Lee's remarks. Even if the removal of the indictment-withdrawal provision is reflected in the bill, the president's position is only justified if the special counsel itself reaches a conclusion of fabrication. If the special prosecutor finds no evidence of manipulation, a political backlash comes back around. The old principle that truth must be revealed to earn trust will determine the success or failure of this special counsel. With the procedural controversy cleared away, what remains now is what facts the special counsel itself will produce.
