Opposition Judiciary Committee Members: "Appointing Cho Huidae as Witness Is Brazen... President Lee Must Explain"

People Power Party Judiciary Committee Members Hold Press Conference
"The Core Issue Behind the Delay in Supreme Court Nominations Is Whether the Presidential Office Intervened"
"It Must Be Disclosed Whether Preference or Exclusion Requests Were

Members of the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee from the People Power Party expressed strong opposition on August 19 as the Democratic Party of Korea unilaterally adopted Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hui-dae as a witness at the committee’s full session. They denounced the move as a “brazen political offensive,” insisting, “It is not Chief Justice Cho who should provide an explanation for this situation, but President Lee Jaemyung.”

Park Hyungsu, the legislative secretary of the People Power Party’s Judiciary Committee, together with Kim Minjeon, Joo Jinwoo, and Kim Taegyu, held a press conference at the National Assembly that day. They stated, “The essence of the controversy over the delay in nominating Supreme Court justices is neither about the nomination process nor whether the Chief of the Court Administration called anyone. The real issue is whether the presidential office intervened in the exercise of the Supreme Court Chief Justice’s constitutionally guaranteed right to nominate justices.”

On the 19th, members of the People Power Party's Legislative and Judiciary Committee protested during the full committee meeting held at the National Assembly. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

Earlier that day, the Democratic Party, during the committee's full session, single-handedly passed a motion to adopt Chief Justice Cho as a witness regarding the nomination process of Supreme Court justice candidates. The People Power Party members criticized, “If the Chief Justice is only allowed to nominate those favored by the president, this is an unconstitutional notion that grants the president a ‘pre-approval right’ not stipulated in the Constitution.”

They then called on the presidential office, stating, “The public needs to know whether there was any request to nominate a specific candidate, any preference for, or exclusion of, certain candidates, and who made contact with the Supreme Court regarding this matter.”

Joo Jinwoo also remarked, “If the presidential office insisted on a specific candidate for Supreme Court justice, that would constitute an infringement on the Chief Justice’s constitutional nomination rights,” adding, “Summoning the Chief Justice, who exercised his nomination authority, to the National Assembly is not logically consistent.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.