Does ending supplementary investigative authority honor Roh's legacy?

Chang Se-jeong

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The ruling Democratic Party (DP) appears determined to strip prosecutors of their supplementary investigative authority, a power widely regarded as the final institutional safeguard for victims in criminal cases. At a closed-door general meeting on Friday, the party adopted as its official position a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would abolish the authority, in line with its broader policy of prohibiting prosecutors from conducting direct investigations. The party plans to push the bill through the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee before bringing it to a plenary vote this Thursday, raising fresh concerns that the governing party is once again using its overwhelming majority to force through controversial legislation.

Some of the country's best-known advocates for crime victims strongly oppose the proposal. Attorney Kim Ye-won, who has long represented people with disabilities in criminal proceedings, and attorney Kim Jae-ryeon, who represented the victim in the late Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon's sexual harassment case despite political backlash and secondary victimization, both argue that supplementary investigative authority remains essential. Once the Prosecutors' Office is abolished in October under the government's restructuring plan, police will effectively monopolize criminal investigations. Without prosecutors reviewing and correcting flawed or incomplete police investigations, they warn, an important safeguard for victims will disappear.

Public opinion has also shifted. The case involving Jang Yun-gi, who is accused of murdering a high school girl in an attempted rape, exposed allegations that investigators mishandled evidence after it emerged that the suspect's father was an active-duty police officer in the same jurisdiction. Claims that officers attempted to conceal mistakes and distort the investigation strengthened calls for independent prosecutorial review. A recent Gallup poll found that 61 percent favored retaining prosecutors' supplementary investigative authority, while only 23 percent supported abolishing it. Even within Minbyun, the Lawyers for a Democratic Society, which previously advocated eliminating the authority, 67 percent of surveyed members favored preserving it in full or in part. Nevertheless, DP leaders have brushed aside objections.

Why, then, do hard-liners within the ruling party remain so determined to abolish the system despite growing public skepticism? Whenever prosecutorial reform becomes a political issue, Rep. Jung Chung-rae, who is seeking re-election as party leader, frequently invokes former President Roh Moo-hyun's legacy.

In his memoir “I Was a Prosecutor of the Republic of Korea” (translated) (2023), former prosecutor Lee In-kyu detailed allegations that Roh's family accepted large sums of money from a longtime political supporter. After prosecutors questioned Roh and prepared to summon his wife, the former president took his own life, leaving the note, “Do not blame anyone. It is fate.” At the time, some progressive figures openly criticized Roh over the bribery allegations before later embracing him as a symbol of prosecutorial reform.

Many politicians have since invoked Roh's death to rally supporters and fuel hostility toward prosecutors rather than pursuing reconciliation. Instead of promoting forgiveness and healing, they have repeatedly used his tragedy to deepen political divisions and strengthen their own positions. The author questions whether Roh himself would have approved.

Roh devoted much of his career to dismantling authoritarianism and defending ordinary citizens. After a brief stint as a judge, he built his reputation as a labor and human rights lawyer in the Busan, Ulsan and South Gyeongsang region. Shortly after taking office in 2003, he demonstrated his commitment to prosecutorial reform by participating in the unprecedented televised “Dialogue with Prosecutors.”

Roh never concealed his distrust of prosecutors. Following investigations into illegal presidential campaign financing involving both major parties after the 2002 election, he complained in 2004 that “unelected power is attempting to control power elected by the people.” Yet the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Central Investigation Department was abolished not during Roh's presidency but under the Lee Myung-bak administration in 2012, reflecting bipartisan agreement that the organization had accumulated excessive power.

Roh's improper relationship with a political supporter ultimately ended in personal tragedy during the prosecution's investigation. Even so, his efforts to reduce authoritarianism and stand with society's most vulnerable deserve recognition. The author argues that Roh would not have supported abolishing a safeguard opposed by women's groups, disability advocates, progressive civic organizations and many legal scholars because they believe it would weaken protections for vulnerable victims.

Those pressing ahead with the legislation should therefore answer a simple question. How faithfully does abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigative authority reflect Roh Moo-hyun's values, philosophy and vision of prosecutorial reform? Or is his name being invoked merely to preserve political power? Sooner or later, the politicians advancing this legislation will have to answer that question.