Seoul (TDI): South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was ousted by the Constitutional Court on Friday, which upheld parliament’s impeachment motion over his imposition of martial law last year that sparked the country’s worst political crisis in decades.
The verdict caps months of political turmoil that have overshadowed efforts to deal with the new administration of US President Donald Trump at a time of slowing growth in Asia’s 4th-largest economy.
With Yoon’s ouster, a presidential election is required to take place within sixty days, according to the country’s constitution.
Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will continue to serve as acting president until the new president assumes office.
Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae said Yoon violated his duty as president with his December 3 martial law announcement, acting beyond the powers given to him under the law and declaring his actions as “a serious challenge to democracy”.
“Yoon committed a serious betrayal of the people’s trust who are the sovereign members of the country,” Moon said, adding that his declaration of martial law created chaos in all areas of society, the economy, foreign policy.”
Read More: South Korea’s Parliament Pushes for Yoon’s Ouster
Thousands of people at a rally demanding Yoon’s ouster, including hundreds who had camped out overnight, erupted into wild cheers on hearing the judgment, chanting “We won!”
Yoon’s supporters who were gathered near his official residence reacted in anger. One protester was taken into custody for smashing a police bus window.
The South Korean won was largely unfazed by Friday’s verdict, remaining at about 1% higher vs dollar at 1,436.6 per dollar by 2:49am GMT (7:49am PKT), according to Reuters.
Read More: President Yoon Suk Yeol Indicted for Insurrection Over Martial Law
The benchmark KOSPI dropped 0.7 percent, also unchanged from the morning as the expected scenario was for the court to uphold the parliament’s decision.
The court rejected most of Yoon’s claims that he imposed martial law to highlight the opposition party’s misuse of parliamentary majority, stating that legal avenues were available to address disagreements.
