Unusual Questioning of Chief Justice Jo Hee-de
The Democratic Party of Korea took an unusual step during the Supreme Court audit held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the 13th. The party proceeded with questioning Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, which broke from previous practices. The People Power Party strongly protested near the seat of Committee Chairperson Choo Mi-ae, stating, “This does not align with practice and undermines the principle of separation of powers.” Chairperson Choo eventually declared a suspension of the audit around 11:40 a.m., saying, “Please summon the National Assembly security personnel.”
Democratic Party lawmaker Park Gyun-taek started the questioning at approximately 11:20 a.m., asking Chief Justice Jo, “Have you ever met former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo?” This question referenced a debunked conspiracy theory about a “secret meeting involving Chief Justice Jo Hee-de, Han Duck-soo, and two others.” Lawmaker Seo Young-kyo of the same party, who previously raised the so-called “four-person meeting” claim in the National Assembly, reiterated the question, pressuring Jo. He asked, “Have you ever met Han Duck-soo?” and added, “Have you ever met Jeong Sang-myeong, a former Prosecutor General and alumnus of Daegu Kyungbuk High School?”
Park questioned Chief Justice Jo, who overturned the election law case involving President EJAEmyeong in May and remanded it for retrial. He said, “You handled the case of the first opposition candidate’s violation of the Public Official Election Act with the speed of a military operation, like roasting beans in a lightning flash. Do you believe that trial was correct?” He continued, “Is it appropriate to reach a conclusion two days after the case was assigned and send the ruling nine days later?” Park, a former senior prosecutor, had previously served as President EJAEmyeong’s defense attorney.
Seo Young-kyo stated, “The 70,000-page record amounts to 350 books,” and asked, “Can anyone review all of this in two days?” He claimed, “Chief Justice Jo voted within two days,” and asserted, “This was an attempt to ‘take down’ President EJAEmyeong.”
Seo also questioned Chief Ethics Inspector Choi Jin-soo, asking, “Did Presiding Judge Jee Kui-youn visit a room salon? Did he change his mobile phone?” He added, “Jee Kui-youn canceled the arrest of Yoon Suk-yeol,” and asked, “Why haven’t our Chief Justice and the head of the National Court Administration replaced Jee Kui-youn?”
Protests from the People Power Party
As Democratic Party lawmakers began questioning Chief Justice Jo, People Power Party members of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee gathered near Chairperson Choo Mi-ae’s seat to protest.
People Power Party lawmaker Joo Jin-woo said, “It seems like they want to retry the case for President EJAEmyeong’s acquittal,” and added, “Their claim is to retry the case for the president’s acquittal.” Joo also asked, “What objectivity and expertise does the National Assembly have to retry the president’s case?”
Lawmaker Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party protested, “Do you not feel ashamed? Why are you detaining the Chief Justice and pressuring him to testify in this manner?”
Chief Justice Jo’s Response
In his opening remarks, Chief Justice Jo stated, “There are concerns that this audit violates Article 8 of the National Assembly Audit and Investigation Act, which stipulates that audits should not be conducted for the purpose of interfering with ongoing trials, as well as the Constitution of the Republic of Korea Article 103, which guarantees judicial independence, and Article 65 of the Court Organization Act, which stipulates the confidentiality of deliberations.”
He continued, “If judges are summoned to testify about trial matters simply because they presided over certain cases, it could discourage judges from ruling according to the Constitution, laws, and their conscience, and may even lead them to consider external pressures.” He added, “In a constitutional state with a separation of powers, it is rare to find examples where judges are subjected to audits or hearings and made to testify about trial matters.”