National Assembly Passes Special Prosecutor Bill on Fabricated Indictments as PPP Boycotts Vote
The seventh special prosecutor since the launch of the Lee Jae-myung administration has cleared the threshold of the National Assembly. The "Special Prosecutor Act to Uncover the Truth Behind Fabricated Investigations and Fabricated Indictments" — commonly known as the fabricated indictment special prosecutor bill — proposed under the leadership of the Democratic Party, passed the National Assembly plenary session on the 6th. The People Power Party, opposed to the bill as a means to withdraw indictments in cases involving President Lee, boycotted the vote.
Why It Became a Controversy
The bill targets the power institutions of the Yoon Suk-yeol era, including the prosecution, the National Intelligence Service, and the Board of Audit and Inspection. The ruling camp argues that these institutions are suspected of fabrication during their investigations of former government officials and opposition figures, and that the truth must be uncovered. In particular, the circumstances surrounding the investigation and indictment of President Lee Jae-myung during his time as a presidential candidate have become a central issue. The opposition offers a completely different interpretation of the same matter. The People Power Party claims the bill is a mechanism of "presidential self-absolution" disguised as a special prosecution, criticizing it as an attempt to politically neutralize cases that are already in trial proceedings.
The reason the bill matters to both sides is clear. Once the special prosecutor is launched, the legitimacy of past investigations and indictments themselves will be put on trial. Beyond the direct outcome of whether the president's indictments are withdrawn, the bill carries heavy political weight as it will determine the future direction of prosecution reform discussions.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The bill establishes a special prosecutor to handle suspected cases of fabricated investigations and fabricated indictments, granting the necessary personnel and investigative powers. Notably, it grants investigative authority to seconded prosecutors as well. Under the existing special prosecutor framework, seconded prosecutors were often limited to supporting investigations; the new bill explicitly grants them authority as investigative actors, presumably with the aim of strengthening the special prosecutor's practical investigative capacity.
The scale is also unprecedented. According to Yonhap News Agency, the special prosecutor will be able to operate with 309 personnel for up to 200 days, including extensions. This represents a significant expansion compared to past special prosecutors, reflecting both the variety of institutions under investigation — the prosecution, the National Intelligence Service, and the Board of Audit and Inspection — and the sheer number of cases involved.
Operational Challenges and the Debate
Even after passage, considerable challenges remain. The personnel shortage at the prosecuting authorities, such as the prosecution, from which personnel would be requested is cited as the first obstacle. A structural contradiction also persists: the very institutions that would need to lend staff to the special prosecutor are themselves under investigation or within its scope. How to investigate cases already in trial is another difficulty. Former Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho is reported to have said that the bill "should have been deliberated more carefully" and that "the truth will not be easy to uncover." The remarks are seen as expressing concern over potential conflicts between the special prosecutor's scope of activity and ongoing trial proceedings.
The People Power Party pushed back strongly immediately after passage. It held a large-scale rally in front of the National Assembly that day to campaign against the bill, declaring that it would launch an outdoor struggle and branding the legislation "the worst law since the founding of the nation." The ruling party, for its part, argues that this is a necessary investigation to uncover the truth and correct the selective prosecution practices of power institutions. In the end, the same bill has become the battleground for opposing frames: "checking the prosecution" versus "defending the president."
What remains are transmission to the government and official promulgation. Given the ruling party's grip on the National Assembly, the launch of the framework itself is highly likely to proceed. Whether it delivers real results, however, is another matter. Whether the 309-strong workforce can be secured on time, how it will operate alongside ongoing trials, and whether the special prosecutor's findings will actually lead to withdrawn indictments remain open variables. If the opposition's boycott continues in the process of selecting the special prosecutor candidate, political conflict over the legitimacy of the special prosecution is expected to persist beyond the legislative stage.
From a legal and institutional perspective, the passage confirms a pattern in which the special prosecutor system is repeatedly used as a tool to check power institutions during transitions of government. The fact that this is the seventh special prosecutor under the Lee Jae-myung administration illustrates the trend. Finding an institutional balance between concerns over the abuse of special prosecutors and the need to investigate power institutions is likely to remain a task ahead.
