Seoul (TDI): South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol could try to impose martial law again or undermine constitutional institutions should he be reinstated, lawyers for parliament argued on Tuesday as his impeachment trial entered its final phase.
After weeks of testimony from top current and former officials, including some facing criminal charges over the brief martial law on December 3, lawyers for both sides presented their final arguments at the Constitutional Court.
Kim Jin-han, a lawyer for the parliament, told the justices said, “Declaring martial law in a situation that does not fit a national emergency is a declaration of dictatorship and military rule,” Reuters reported.
He cited pro-Yoon demonstrators who stormed a different court in January.
“If he returns to office, we can’t be sure he won’t impose martial law,” Kim said.
“We also cannot rule out the possibility that he may target other state and constitutional institutions.”
The Constitutional Court will hold another hearing on Thursday to question three more witnesses, including the impeached prime minister and the former police chief.
It is reviewing parliament’s impeachment of Yoon and will decide whether to remove him permanently or reinstate him.
Also Read: President Yoon Suk Yeol Indicted for Insurrection Over Martial Law
If he is removed, a new presidential election must be conducted within 60 days.
Yoon has argued that he had a right as president to issue his martial law decree, which lasted around 6 hours before he rescinded it in the face of parliamentary opposition.
He said the action was also justified by political deadlock and threats from “anti-state forces” sympathetic to North Korea.
Also Read: South Korean Impeached President Yoon Arrested
His case at the Constitutional Court has also included arguments that he never actually planned to stop parliament from functioning, even though the order was publicly declared and troops and police were sent to the legislature.
Yoon also deployed troops to the National Election Commission and later said the decree was necessary in part because the NEC was not addressing concerns over election hacking, a claim rejected by election officials.
