Is easing prosecutor dismissals a tool to pressure dissent?

 

Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho answers questions regarding the decision to drop the appeal in the Daejang-dong case during a plenary session of the National Assembly’s Special Committee on Budget and Accounts in Seoul on Nov. 12. [YONHAP]

 
The Democratic Party (DP) introduced a bill on Thursday that would make it far easier to dismiss prosecutors who commit “serious misconduct,” treating them like ordinary civil servants. Under current law, prosecutors can be disciplined through dismissal, suspension, pay cuts or warnings, just like other government employees. But “removal from office,” which includes the loss of up to 50 percent of pension benefits, requires impeachment by the National Assembly and a ruling by the Constitutional Court. The party has long criticized this as a symbol of “prosecutorial privilege.”
 
If the law has become a shield for prosecutors who commit wrongdoing, reform is warranted. But if easing dismissal requirements becomes a tool to discipline prosecutors who defy political power, the neutrality of investigations will be fundamentally compromised. Concerns have grown after Kim Byung-ki, the DP floor leader who sponsored the bill, said the government must “use every legal and administrative tool available to block and crush a rebellion by prosecutors.” The bill was submitted as prosecutors nationwide protested the decision to drop an appeal in the Daejang-dong ruling. Even senior prosecutors appointed by the Lee Jae Myung administration demanded an explanation, culminating in the resignation of acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok. The DP has responded by branding prosecutors’ objections as “insubordination,” “mutiny,” and “a threat to the state.”
 
There is historical context behind the strict dismissal requirements. Even during authoritarian governments, the law was designed to prevent prosecutors from bending to political influence and to ensure investigations followed legal principles rather than the wishes of those in power. The Act on Discipline of Prosecutors functioned as a safeguard to preserve the independence of investigations from political authorities.
 

Related Article

• Beleaguered acting top prosecutor offers to resign over Daejang-dong appeal controversy

• Presidential office must explain prosecutors’ decision to drop Daejang-dong appeal

• Justice minister’s explanation over prosecutors’ appeal withdrawal fails to convince

• President Lee's ties to Daejang-dong case weaken as prosecutors opt against appeal

 
In September, the DP pushed through a bill that stripped the prosecution of most investigative authority and abolished the Prosecutors’ Office as part of its “reform” drive. Investigative power was transferred to the police and a new Serious Crimes Investigation Agency. The justification was to prevent politically motivated probes. Yet making it easier to remove prosecutors now risks making the institution more vulnerable to political pressure. Investigations that displease the government may be avoided, and prosecutors who align with political expectations may be the ones who survive. The possibility of targeted disciplinary action against prosecutors critical of the administration would also increase. It raises the question of whether the goal of reform is to create a more compliant corps of prosecutors.
 
The Daejang-dong appeal controversy has already shown how susceptible the prosecution can be to political winds. Noh’s decision not to uphold basic prosecutorial responsibilities revealed how even the maintenance of indictments can be swayed. Weakening dismissal requirements in such an environment would further erode independence. Legislation claiming to eliminate privilege but weakening political neutrality should be set aside.


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.