South Korea’s constitutional court has begun reviewing the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol over his attempt to impose martial law on 3 December, a process that will decide if he is removed from office.
The court will hold the first public hearing on 27 December, the spokesperson Lee Jean told a news conference, after the court’s six justices met on Saturday to discuss plans for reviewing the impeachment by the opposition-controlled parliament.
The court has up to six months to decide whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate him. The first hearing would be preparatory, to confirm major legal issues of the case and schedule among other matters, Lee said.
Yoon was not required to attend that hearing, he said. In 2017, the court took three months to issue a ruling to strip the then president, Park Geun-hye, of her role after she was impeached for abusing the powers of her office.
Yoon and severak senior officials face potential charges of insurrection, abuse of authority and obstructing people from exercising their rights, in relation to the short-lived martial law.
A joint team of investigators from the police, the defence ministry and an anti-corruption agency were planning to call Yoon in for questioning at 10am on Wednesday, a police official told Reuters.
Investigators tried to serve a summons for Yoon to appear by delivering it to the presidential office and his official residence, but the presidential security service declined to take it, saying it was not in a position to do so, Yonhap news said.
On Sunday, Yoon did not appear in response to a summons for questioning by a separate investigation by the prosecutors’ office, the Yonhap news agency reported. Yoon said it was because he was still forming a legal team for his defence, it said.
The leader of Yoon’s ruling People Power party, Han Dong-hoon, resigned on Monday, saying his position had become untenable after he decided to support Yoon’s impeachment at the weekend.
“Martial law in the advanced nation that is South Korea, in 2024. How angry and disappointed must you have all been?” he said at a press conference.
Han, once Yoon’s closest ally and former justice minister, defended his decision to break with the president over his attempt to impose martial law earlier this month.
“Even though [the martial law] was done by a president our party produced, being misunderstood as defending illegal martial law that mobilised the military is a betrayal of this great country,” he said, adding he had been “terrified” of potential bloodshed between citizens and soldiers if it had not been lifted.
“I tried in every possible way to find a better path for this country other than impeachment, but in the end, I could not. It’s all because of my shortcomings. I’m sorry.”
The resignation marks the final rupture in a once-close alliance between Han and Yoon, who worked together in the prosecution service before Yoon’s rise to the presidency.
Their relationship began showing signs of strain earlier this year, when Han broke ranks to suggest the presidential couple should apologise over allegations that the first lady had accepted a luxury Dior bag.
The breaking point came after revelations that Han was among several politicians, including opposition figures, whom Yoon had ordered arrested during martial law.
Han subsequently urged ruling party lawmakers to support the president’s impeachment, saying Yoon posed “a great danger” to democracy.
The rift reflects deeper divisions within South Korea’s conservative movement, with Han representing a younger, seemingly more reform-minded faction increasingly at odds with Yoon’s more traditional power base.
In a late-night emergency television address to the nation on 3 December, Yoon announced he was imposing martial law, accusing the opposition of paralysing the government with “anti-state activities”.
The imposition of martial law – the first of its kind in more than four decades – lasted only six hours, and hundreds of troops and police officers sent by Yoon to the national assembly withdrew after the president’s decree was overturned. No major violence occurred.
