President Yoon Suk Yeol claims martial law was necessary to ‘alert the public’ in final defense

The court is likely to decide within two weeks whether to dismiss or reinstate Yoon, who is the first out of three presidents who have been impeached by the legislature in modern Korean history to appear in person to argue against his removal from office.

In his statement, which began a little past 9:00 pm and lasted over an hour, the president said the purpose of his short-lived martial law decree on Dec. 3, 2024, was to “alert the people of a national crisis” that he claimed was precipitated by antistate forces.

Yoon and his lawyers have argued that he was compelled to declare martial law because of his conflict with the National Assembly, which is controlled by the DP, and its repeated motions to sack his ministers and cut the annual budget.

Yoon described Korea as “headed toward disaster like a frog slowly boiling in a pot” and claimed the country “now faces an existential threat,” countering the National Assembly’s stance that his declaration of martial law took place in the absence of conditions stipulated in the Constitution.

Referring to U.S. President Donald Trump, who declared a national emergency on the first day of his second term on Jan. 20, Yoon asked the court, “While the United States might take a different view on national emergencies, can we be certain that we are not in one?”

However, president claimed he had achieved his objective of warning the Korean public and said it was “absurd” to think that he would try to declare martial law again given that “so many people have become aware of the situation facing the country.”

Instead, he vowed to “take people’s concerns to heart” and do everything he can “to ensure this [incident] serves as a stepping stone toward a stronger, better Korea.”

Yoon also acknowledged that his decree had rekindled painful memories of times when martial law was imposed by the military dictatorships of the 1970s and 80s, but argued the DP-led liberal bloc is “exploiting this trauma” for political gain.

These comments, which alluded to the almost daily rallies outside the court by supporters calling for his reinstatement and detractors calling for his dismissal, were the only signs from an otherwise defiant president that he had erred by declaring martial law.

Yoon claimed that “spies and external forces intent on encroaching on our sovereignty are working with internal antistate forces to seriously threaten our security” by use of “fake news and fabricated polls.”

The president characterized his impeachment as an example of the DP’s efforts to “incite” public opinion against him.

He repeated his earlier accusation that North Korea had interfered in South Korean elections through the DP, alluding to his belief that the liberal party’s overwhelming victory in last year’s general election was the result of voting fraud.

Though the court examined claims of election tampering that had been raised by Yoon’s side during the impeachment trial, no such evidence has come to light.

Yoon mentioned the word “spies” 25 times throughout his statement, which ran 77 pages in length.

The president doubled down on his previous argument that he only ever meant to declare martial law for a short time and communicated this intent to former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun.

“From the beginning, I made it clear that the purpose of martial law was to appeal to the public. I also said that the martial law will not last long because the National Assembly would quickly demand it be lifted,” he said.

Yoon also pushed back against former Special Warfare Commander Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-keun’s testimony that the president ordered him to use soldiers to drag lawmakers out from the Assembly in order to prevent them from reaching the quorum to hold a vote rescinding his decree.

“If the Assembly hadn’t reached the quorum, it would have made more sense [for me] to try and stop more lawmakers from entering the building rather than dragging out the ones already inside,” he said.

The president further denied that he failed to hold a Cabinet meeting in line with legal procedure just before declaring martial law.

Yoon said he explained the situation to Cabinet members as Kim handed out copies of the decree along with outlines of government policy.

He noted that “the actual Cabinet meeting lasted 5 minutes, but we had already discussed [the decree] adequately by that point.”

He claimed a Cabinet meeting just prior to declaring martial law “cannot take place like a regular meeting” due to the need to “maintain security and reduce confusion.”

Yoon also promised to focus on constitutional and political reforms if he were to be reinstated.

“I will dedicate myself to swiftly pushing for constitutional amendments in line with the will of the people and creating a political structure that in line ongoing changes in our society.”

The president said he would delegate domestic affairs to the prime minister in order to focus on “safeguarding national interests” amid rapid shifts and crises in the international geopolitical order.

Yoon’s statement was preceded by that of DP Rep. Jung Chung-rae, who argued that Yoon “must be removed from office for the sake of democracy” during his 40-minute concluding argument on behalf of the National Assembly’s impeachment committee, which acted as the prosecution in the case.

Jung argued that if the president intended for martial law to only serve as a warning to the public, he should not have sent troops to the Assembly on the night of the short-lived decree.

He also called on the judiciary to punish all who tried to carry out the president’s martial law plan “without exception.”

Tuesday’s hearing, which lasted over eight hours, marked the end of oral arguments in the seven-week impeachment trial.

At least six out of the Constitutional Court’s eight justices must rule in favor of Yoon’s impeachment to effect his removal from office.

If that happens, an election to choose his successor must take place within 60 days.

BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]