Democrats Push Back Special Prosecutor Bill on Fabricated Indictments Until After National Assembly Audit

The Democratic Party has tied its own hands on the special prosecutor bill targeting fabricated indictments.

The Democratic Party of Korea has decided to postpone action on the "Special Prosecutor Act to Investigate the Truth Behind Fabricated Investigations and Indictments" (the fabricated-indictment special prosecutor act) until after the National Assembly audit concludes in October. Although some in the ruling party had initially considered passing the bill at a plenary session early next month, the move is believed to reflect an internal judgment that accelerating action could backfire.

Why the Delay Now?

The substance of the bill has not changed; only its pace has. The Democratic Party has pushed the special prosecutor act with the aim of probing allegations that prosecutors fabricated indictments in cases involving President Lee Jae-myung, including the Ssangbangwool remittances to North Korea and the Daejang-dong development scandal. President Lee himself has stressed the need for a special prosecutor at a press conference.

The sticking point, however, is the special prosecutor's power to withdraw indictments. The opposition and some segments of public opinion have criticized the bill as, in effect, a procedural vehicle to quash the charges against President Lee. Within the party, concern grew that the faster the bill moved, the more firmly it would be framed as "self-rescue legislation."

Opposition from the People Power Party also proved fiercer than expected. A ruling party floor official said that given the strength of the People Power Party's resistance, the judgment was made that it would be better to handle contested bills all at once after the audit. A proposal to process livelihood bills first without a filibuster was also floated within the party.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The fabricated-indictment special prosecutor act would task an independent special prosecutor with investigating whether prosecutors tampered with evidence or brought improper indictments in the Ssangbangwool North Korea remittance case and the Daejang-dong case. The scope of the special prosecutor's powers—particularly whether they would include the authority to withdraw indictments in ongoing trials—was the central sticking point.

Withdrawal of an indictment is a mechanism by which a prosecutor retracts a case already brought to trial. If the special prosecutor were granted this power, the trials related to President Lee could be terminated altogether. The opposition has therefore characterized the bill as an attempt to end the cases through legislation and has moved to block it. The People Power Party has formally adopted as party policy both blocking the indictment-withdrawal special prosecutor act and pursuing a separate "leverage" special prosecutor.

Where the Ruling and Opposition Parties Stand

The Democratic Party cites the need to gauge public opinion as the reason for the delay, saying that rebounding approval ratings and prioritizing livelihood legislation come first. The prevailing analysis is that the calculation reflects fears that early passage could become a political liability. In the end, the audit schedule provided a convenient pretext for pumping the brakes.

The People Power Party is resolved to block the bill altogether. Its argument is that granting the special prosecutor power to withdraw indictments would undermine the structure of prosecution and trial. Instead, it is countering by pushing a separate special prosecutor to investigate the so-called leverage allegations tied to Daejang-dong. With both parties brandishing their own special prosecutor cards, confrontation is expected to deepen as the audit session approaches.

Schedule and Outlook

Procedurally, the special prosecutor act must clear review by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee before a plenary vote. The Democratic Party envisions bundling contested bills for passage once the October audit wraps up. During the audit period, the fabricated-indictment allegations are highly likely to become a flashpoint at the prosecutor's office audit.

The key variable is public opinion. If sentiment wavers between sympathy for a special prosecutor's necessity and criticism that this is an attempt to end the president's own cases, the Democratic Party's timing could shift again. Observers point out that for the cause of thorough truth-finding not to be consumed by political calculation, transparency must underpin the legislative process. With the delay leaving room for a reversal, the ruling-opposition battle over the special prosecutor act is expected to move from the audit chamber to the plenary floor after the audit concludes.