The South Korean government announced new legislative proposals for the Criminal Case Investigation Agency and the Prosecutors' Office, yet tensions remain unresolved over the controversial issue of prosecutors' complementary investigation rights, potentially leading to further conflict.
On the 24th, the South Korean government unveiled its plans for the re-legislation of the Criminal Case Investigation Agency (중수청) and the Prosecutors' Office (공소청), clarifying certain aspects of the long-discussed prosecutorial reforms. However, a key unresolved issue is whether to retain prosecutors' complementary investigation rights, which has led to notable discord between the government and the ruling Democratic Party. While the Prime Minister's Office proposed a revised bill lacking clear provisions regarding these complementary investigation rights, discussions regarding adjustments to the criminal procedure law remain ongoing.
Tensions have escalated as the presidential stance, articulated by President Lee Jae-myung during his New Year press conference on January 21, indicated the necessity of complementary investigation rights under specific circumstances. On the other hand, the Democratic Party stated in a recent meeting that they would not permit such rights but instead propose granting a request power for complementary investigations. This divergence sparked dissatisfaction among high-ranking officials within the government, prompting Democratic Party leader Jeong Cheong-rae to suggest that the party’s position should be taken into account when drafting governmental proposals, illustrating the internal discord.
The debate over complementary investigation rights encapsulates broader questions regarding prosecutorial reform within South Korea's legal community. Proponents argue that these rights are necessary for careful indictment assessments and to control so-called 'hidden cases' by police, while opponents fear these rights contradict the core principle of separating investigation and prosecution. They contend that allowing prosecutors direct jurisdiction will risk abuse of authority and elevate instances of investigative overreach. Instead, they advocate for a requests-based system for supplemental investigations, raising concerns that such a framework may be insufficient to address the gaps in investigative effectiveness between the police and prosecution.
