SOUTH Korean president Park Geun-hye has been accused of “broadly and gravely” violating the constitution as her impeachment trial got under way.
Politicians, functioning as prosecutors in the trial, argued that Park should be removed from the presidency, but her lawyers said the accusations lacked evidence.
The Constitutional Court has begun hearing arguments in Park’s trial, in which she is accused of colluding with a long-time friend to extort money and favours from companies, and allowing the same friend to interfere with government affairs.
As the impeachment hearing was taking place, Park’s friend, Choi Soon-sil, appeared in another court in Seoul where she told the judge she denies the allegations against her.
Also in the courtroom were former presidential secretaries Ahn Jong-beom, who allegedly pressured companies which gave tens of millions of dollars to foundations Choi controlled, and Jung Ho-sung, charged with passing government secrets to Choi, such as information on ministerial candidates. The chief prosecutor in the impeachment trial, politician Kwon Seong Dong, said Park abused her position by “broadly and gravely” violating the constitution to commit corruption and turn state affairs into a profit tool for her friend.
He said Park must be removed from office to repair the damage she had caused to the country’s democracy.
The Constitutional Court has less than six months to decide if Park should be removed or reinstated, and if it removes her, an election has to be held within 60 days.
Park’s lawyer, Lee Joong-hwan, said the accusations stated in the impeachment bill “lack evidence and fail to make legal sense” because they were based on allegations and media reports, not criminal convictions.
The hearing proceeded without Park, who refused to give evidence for the second time.
The court had planned to hear evidence from four of Park’s former and current aides suspected of helping Choi, but only one appeared.
Besides the corruption allegations, the court will also hear accusations included in the impeachment bill that blamed Park for restrictions on media reporting and for government inaction during a 2014 ferry sinking that killed more than 300 passengers.
Yoon Jeon-chu, who has been Park’s aide since 2013, did not answer directly most of the questions about her interactions with Choi and what Park did on the day of the ferry disaster.
The court said it was not able to deliver subpoenas to former aides Ahn Bong-geun and Lee Jae-man, who have both worked with Park for nearly 20 years since her days as a politician, and said another current aide, Lee Yeong-seon, asked to appear later.
Park has publicly apologised for putting trust in Choi, but denied accusations that she colluded with her friend in criminal activities.
Prosecutors also indicted Choi’s niece and several former government and presidential officials allegedly assisted Choi in manipulating state affairs, and exploiting her connections with Park, to amass an illicit fortune.
Park’s lawyers may prefer her not to give evidence because their chief argument is that the accusations against Park have not been fully proven, said Han Sang-hie, a law professor at Seoul’s Konkuk University.
During Thursday’s hearings, Seo Seok-gu, another Park lawyer, argued that the investigation into Park was biased and suggested that the massive protests that pushed politicians to impeach her were influenced by groups sympathetic to North Korea.
Seo accused news organisations that reported on the scandal of demagoguery, which he said threatens to make democracy “very dangerous”, and compared Park’s impeachment to the “unjust” deaths of Jesus Christ and ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here