Special Prosecutor's Office Launches with Investigative Powers Granted to 20 Seconded Prosecutors to Probe Fabricated Indictments
A special prosecutor's office has been launched for the first time, with investigative powers granted to 20 seconded prosecutors.
With the National Assembly passing the 'Special Prosecutor Act on Investigating the Truth Behind Fabricated Investigations and Indictments' (Fabricated Indictment Special Prosecutor Act), led by the Democratic Party of Korea, on the 6th, the investigation and indictment processes of major cases handled by state institutions—including the prosecution, the National Intelligence Service, and the Board of Audit and Inspection—during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration have come under scrutiny. The law covers cases related to President Lee Jae-myung, six in total, as well as cases from the Moon Jae-in administration. The National Assembly pushed the bill through by forcing a vote to end the People Power Party's unlimited debate, known as a filibuster, after roughly 24 hours.
Applying the Old Legal Framework in Conflict with the Abolition of Direct Investigative Powers
The biggest point of contention in the bill is the structure of investigative authority. With prosecutors' direct investigative powers abolished under the revised Criminal Procedure Act, the Fabricated Indictment Special Prosecutor Act applies the old legal framework as-is, granting investigative powers to 20 seconded prosecutors under the special prosecutor. The design allows the special prosecution team to independently initiate investigations and carry out compulsory measures. However, a mismatch between the timing of the law's implementation and the legal basis for investigative authority raises constitutional concerns. Cho Kuk, leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, pointed out the "potential unconstitutionality." Critics argue that maintaining 20 prosecutors with investigative powers in an era when prosecutors otherwise have none directly conflicts with the intent of the Criminal Procedure Act revision.
Former Justice Minister Chung Seong-ho also voiced dissent within the Democratic Party. He said, "The fabricated indictment special prosecution should have been deliberated more carefully," adding, "It will not be easy to uncover [the truth]." His remarks show that concerns exist even within the ruling party about the bill's realistic prospects for results and the prudence of the legislative process.
Debates Over Scope of Investigation and the Risk of Withdrawn Indictments
Criticism of the bill's wording itself is also substantial. According to Yonhap News Agency, the law sets the scope of investigation too broadly, and vague terms such as 'fabricated investigation' and 'fabricated indictment' raise concerns about unbounded expansion of investigations. If the scope provisions remain unclear, the special prosecutor could arbitrarily expand or shrink cases, which in turn could lead to disputes over the validity of indictments—the very product of the special prosecution's work. Some analysts also note that the seeds of withdrawn indictments remain regarding ongoing trials and finalized verdicts. Given past precedents in which special prosecutors received invalidity rulings due to flaws in the authorizing legislation, the risk of investigative outcomes being rendered legally void is a structural one.
Ruling-Opposition Confrontation and Street Protests
The People Power Party has characterized the law as a "Lee Jae-myung shield law" and a "Lee Jae-myung prison-break law," and has begun organizing opposition. It has escalated its street protests by holding rallies outside the National Assembly, and some within the party have even floated impeaching related officials. From their perspective, the special prosecutor's targets and political timing amount to an effort aimed at defending a specific individual's trials and attacking past administrations.
The Democratic Party hit back. The ruling party countered, urging critics to "stop deceiving the public" and labeling the People Power Party's street protests a "shield for the Yoon Suk-yeol political prosecution." Its logic: forces seeking to cover up allegations of fabricated investigations by the prosecution are instead smearing the special prosecution as a political offensive. Ultimately, the bill is taking on the character of an inter-party war of credibility rather than the essential issue of judicial justice. As Montesquieu observed, in a democracy where the people hold supreme power, judging the abuse of power ultimately comes down to the people's verdict. With the two sides' claims running on parallel tracks, only the special prosecution's tangible results will sway voters' choices.
Upcoming Schedule and Ripple Effects
With the law's passage, the process of recommending and appointing a special prosecutor is expected to proceed step by step. Upon formation, the special prosecution team is likely to begin reviewing prosecution records across all targeted cases and interviewing witnesses. Should the investigation drag on, it could collide with next year's political calendar, amplifying its political impact.
Legal risks also remain. The potential unconstitutionality stemming from the application of the old legal framework and the ambiguity of the investigation's scope could ultimately be put to the test by the Constitutional Court or the courts. Even if the special prosecution's investigation advances, the law's effectiveness itself would be undermined if key indictments were invalidated due to legal defects. Conversely, if fabricated investigations are actually confirmed, it could trigger follow-up procedures such as retrial requests for past finalized verdicts, along with scrutiny of the Yoon Suk-yeol administration's prosecutorial practices. Caught between political stakes and legal stability, the special prosecution's first step is already under scrutiny.
