SEOUL: South Korea’s Constitutional Court will issue its long-awaited ruling on President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment Friday, months after he was suspended for declaring martial law.
Yoon’s December 3 attempt to subvert civilian rule plunged South Korea into political chaos, after he sent armed soldiers into parliament.
Lawmakers defied the troops to vote the measure down and impeached Yoon soon after, but the months of political instability have hit South Korea’s economy and left the country in leadership limbo, even as US President Donald Trump targets the region with tariffs.
The court has held weeks of impeachment hearings to determine whether to officially remove Yoon from office, and then took weeks to deliberate on the case, giving rise to a surge in speculation with some suggesting the justices must be experiencing intense disagreements.
“The president’s impeachment case verdict will be on April 4, 2025 at the Constitutional Court,” the court said in a statement Tuesday.
For Yoon to be removed from office, at least six of the court’s eight justices must vote in favor. Confirmation of his impeachment would trigger elections which must be held within 60 days.
Hundreds of thousands of South Koreans have been rallying for and against Yoon every weekend in central Seoul.
Yoon, a former prosecutor, was detained in January on insurrection charges but was released in early March on procedural grounds. He has remained defiant throughout and blamed a “malicious” opposition.
He is also the first sitting South Korean president to stand trial in a criminal case, facing charges of insurrection over the martial law bid.
“After four long months of waiting, the Constitutional Court has finally responded to the people,” the opposition Democratic Party’s spokesperson said.
“We believe the Court will demonstrate its firm resolve to defend the constitutional order and founding principles of the Republic of Korea by removing Yoon Suk Yeol, the insurrectionist, from office.”
Yoon’s party said it welcomed the court’s move to issue a ruling, saying it hoped the verdict would be “fair and impartial” and would not lead to further social unrest.
The People Power Party “will respect and accept the court’s decision, and after the ruling, both the ruling and opposition parties... must take the lead in easing public divisions and promoting national unity,” Kweon Seong-dong PPP party floor leader said.
If the Constitutional Court decides to formally dismiss the president, it would trigger elections, which opposition leader Lee Jae-myung is currently frontrunner to win.
An appeals court last week overturned an election law conviction against Lee, potentially clearing the way for him to mount a presidential campaign.
But if it is reinstated on appeal before the election, he will be stripped of his parliamentary seat and barred from running for office for five years, including the next presidential vote.
Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha University in Seoul, said the ruling on Lee may have appeared “to many Koreans to be reading the political tea leaves.”
“This is the judiciary trying to unwind the lawfare of the past three years to allow South Korea’s political crisis to be resolved by an election rather than by the courts.”
In a separate case, the Constitutional Court last week dismissed the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, reinstating him as acting president – a role he took after the president was suspended for declaring martial law.
Experts said the ruling did not have a direct legal correlation with the pending decision on Yoon’s impeachment, as it was not focused on the legality of martial law itself.
South Korea’s Constitutional Court to issue ruling on Yoon Suk Yeol impeachment on Friday
https://arab.news/mzz3y
South Korea’s Constitutional Court to issue ruling on Yoon Suk Yeol impeachment on Friday
- Yoon’s December 3 attempt to subvert civilian rule plunged South Korea into political chaos
- Lawmakers defied the troops to vote the measure down and impeached Yoon soon after
India’s top court denies bail to 2 Muslim activists after 5 years in jail without trial
- The two student activists were a leading voice in nationwide protests against the citizenship law, which marked one of the most significant challenges to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government
- Amnesty International in a statement last year said Khalid’s “imprisonment without trial exemplifies derailment of justice” and is “emblematic of a broader pattern of repression faced by those who dare to exercise their rights to freedom of expression”
NEW DELHI: India’s Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to two Muslim student activists who have spent years in detention without trial over a conspiracy case linked to one of the country’s deadliest outbreaks of religious violence.
Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were arrested five years ago under India’s harsh state security law and accused of conspiring to incite the communal violence that swept parts of Delhi in February 2020. The riots left 53 people dead, most of them Muslims, and took place amid massive months-long protests against a controversial 2019 citizenship law that critics said discriminated against Muslims.
While bail was granted to the other five accused in the same case, the court noted that Khalid and Imam had a “central role in the conspiracy.” It also said that the delay in their trial was not a sufficient ground for granting them bail.
“Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stand on a qualitatively different footing as compared to other accused,” the Supreme Court said in its verdict, according to Bar and Bench, a legal news website.
The two student activists were a leading voice in nationwide protests against the citizenship law, which marked one of the most significant challenges to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government. Their detention has been widely seen as emblematic of a broader crackdown on dissent under Modi, drawing criticism from rights groups over the use of anti-terror laws against activists and student leaders.
In the months following the riots, police charged several activists and organizers, including Khalid and Imam, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that in the past was used only to quell violent insurgencies but under Modi has been largely used to silence political opposition. Activists and other dissenters targeted under the law can be held in pretrial detention almost indefinitely, often resulting in years of detention until the completion of trial.
Prosecutors representing the Delhi police had strongly opposed Khalid and Imam’s bail request, arguing that the violence was not a spontaneous outbreak but a deliberate plot intended to tarnish India’s global image, and that they made provocative speeches and instigated violence. Khalid and Imam’s lawyers argue that there is no evidence linking them to the violence and deny the charges against them.
Dozens of other Muslims were also charged in similar cases related to the riots and held under prolonged detention. Some of those cases later unraveled because police were unable to provide evidence linking many detainees to the riots.
Last week, eight US lawmakers wrote to India’s ambassador in Washington expressing concern over Khalid’s prolonged pretrial detention. They urged Indian authorities to grant him a fair and timely trial.
International human rights groups have also repeatedly urged Khalid and Imam’s release, saying their detention suppresses dissent and breaches fundamental legal protections.
Amnesty International in a statement last year said Khalid’s “imprisonment without trial exemplifies derailment of justice” and is “emblematic of a broader pattern of repression faced by those who dare to exercise their rights to freedom of expression.”
