S Korea’s Special Prosecutors: A Political Tool?

Becoming a tool used by the governing party against its political opponents: A system of special prosecutors created to guarantee impartial investigations

A recent editorial in the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo has sharply criticized what it sees as the growing politicization of the country’s special prosecutor system under President Lee Jae-myung (이재명). Published on 24^th August 2026, the editorial argues that a mechanism originally created to guarantee impartial investigations in politically sensitive cases has increasingly become, in the newspaper’s view, a tool that can be used by the governing party against its political opponents.

See also: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

See also When Special Prosecutors Become Political Tools

The editorial was published immediately after the conclusion of the 180-day investigation by the so-called Second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor Team. This investigation was established to examine allegations left unresolved by three earlier special prosecutor investigations focusing on controversies surrounding the administration of former President Yoon Suk Yeol (윤석열). These included the 3^rd December 2024 martial-law episode, allegations involving former First Lady Kim Keon-hee (김건희), and the controversy surrounding the death of a Marine Corps conscript.

Rather than regarding the latest investigation as a successful completion of that process, Segye Ilbo portrays its outcome as evidence of a system that has become increasingly open-ended. The special prosecutor’s team reportedly transferred 46 unresolved cases to the police when its six-month mandate expired. One of those unresolved cases concerned alleged suppression of a police investigation involving the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification – in Korea often referred to simply as Unificationism (통일교). That particular part of the investigation was principally into the handling of police intelligence and possible suppression/leakage of an investigation concerning Family Federation leaders.

The Family Federation case here provides a concrete example of the broader issue discussed by Segye Ilbo: the Second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor Team investigated the matter for six months, but ultimately handed it to another investigative body without resolving it. That is precisely the kind of institutional continuity and potentially open-ended investigation that the editorial is questioning.

Special Prosecutor Kweon Chang-yeong (권창영) defended the decision to transfer the matter to the National Police Agency’s National Office of Investigation (국가수사본부) for further investigation by saying that some matters could not realistically be resolved within six months. He also suggested that investigations should continue through a permanent Special Investigation Headquarters.

For Segye Ilbo, however, this raises a fundamental question: If special prosecutor investigations can simply be followed by new special prosecutor investigations or permanent investigative bodies, where does the process end? The editorial asks rhetorically whether South Korea is heading toward a situation in which special prosecutors continue operating throughout the entire term of current President Lee Jae-myung (이재명), which ends in June 2030.

Why does South Korea have special prosecutors?

To understand the newspaper‘s criticism, some background about South Korea’s special prosecutor system is necessary.

The system was introduced in 1999, during the presidency of Kim Dae-jung (김대중). Its purpose was to provide an alternative mechanism for investigating politically sensitive cases in situations where there could be doubts about the impartiality of the ordinary prosecution service. At the time, one case involved a sitting senior prosecutor, while another involved one of President Kim’s close associates. Both the governing and opposition parties agreed that it could be difficult to expect the regular prosecution service to investigate such cases impartially.

A special prosecutor is therefore intended to operate at a certain distance from the ordinary political and prosecutorial establishment. In principle, the system is designed to provide independence from political power and neutrality between competing political forces.

Segye Ilbo argues that this original rationale has gradually been undermined. According to the editorial, successive special prosecutor investigations have acquired increasingly broad powers and larger organizational structures, while the safeguards intended to guarantee political neutrality have become weaker.

The newspaper regards the latest special prosecutor investigation as a particularly clear example.

A partisan process?

The editorial‘s principal criticism concerns the political circumstances in which the Second Comprehensive Special Prosecutor Team was established.

The bill creating it was pushed through the National Assembly by the Democratic Party of Korea (DPK – 민주당), which currently dominates South Korean politics, together with other parties supporting President Lee’s government. The opposition People Power Party (PPP – 국민의힘) opposed the legislation.

The editorial also objects to the arrangement for selecting the special prosecutor. It says that the right to recommend candidates was divided between the Democratic Party and the National Innovation Party (조국혁신당), which is politically aligned with the current government, while the PPP was excluded.

From Segye Ilbo‘s perspective, this is a fundamental problem. If the governing political forces can establish a special prosecutor and control the process by which candidates are recommended, the newspaper argues, it becomes difficult to regard the resulting investigation as politically independent.

The editorial goes further, alleging that individuals connected with the investigation appeared on YouTube programs sympathetic to the government and expressed hostility toward former President Yoon and the PPP. It also criticizes what it describes as attempts to portray supporters of Yoon as supporters of the 3^rd December 2024 martial-law declaration.

These claims form part of the editorial’s broader argument that the special prosecutor system has moved away from its original purpose and increasingly resembles an instrument of political conflict.

A rapidly expanding system

The editorial places the current controversy in a wider context. Since President Lee Jae-myung (이재명) took office, five special prosecutor teams have reportedly completed investigations, while a sixth was preparing to investigate alleged irregularities involving the 3^rd June 2026 local elections.

At the same time, the Democratic Party is preparing legislation for another special prosecutor investigation concerning allegations of what has been termed “fabricated prosecutions”. This proposal would target investigators involved in criminal cases in which President Lee himself has been implicated.

For Segye Ilbo, this creates an especially striking contradiction.

The Democratic Party has strongly promoted the principle of separating investigation from prosecution, a reform intended to reduce or eliminate prosecutors’ traditional investigative powers. Yet, according to the editorial, the party simultaneously supports special prosecutors who possess both investigative and prosecutorial authority.

The newspaper therefore questions whether the stated institutional principle is being applied consistently.

Ultimately, the editorial is not simply objecting to one particular investigation. Its broader argument is that South Korea’s special prosecutor system risks losing the independence and political neutrality that originally justified its existence. In Segye Ilbo‘s interpretation, what was initially designed as an exceptional safeguard for cases in which ordinary investigations could not be trusted has increasingly become a routine feature of political struggles.

The editorial‘s central warning is consequently about more than the fate of former President Yoon or the current government. It asks whether South Korea is allowing an extraordinary investigative mechanism to become a permanent instrument of political accountability – and, potentially, political retaliation.

See also: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

See also When Special Prosecutors Become Political Tools

Text. Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Justice caught between politics. Illustration: ChatGPT, August 2026, edited.

Related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Mother Han: The Dangers of Guilt by Position

Related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Mother Han: Beyond One Trial – the Wider Stakes

Related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

More, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

And more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Official Statement on Recent Media Coverage

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Defense Challenges Core Claims of Indictment

And also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Unificationism Emerging as a World Religion

More, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Decline of Family Values Creates Social Crisis

And more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Unificationism, Industry, and Cold War Survival

And more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Movement Promoting Family as National Solution

Yet more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

Still more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Mother Han Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

Related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

More, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Shocked Author: “Japan Ignores Basics of Justice”

 Still more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Legal Inconsistencies A Blow to Democracy

Even more, related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Japan: Court Accused of Using Speculation

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to special prosecutors becoming political tool: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial