Revisiting supplementary investigation powers

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Revisiting supplementary investigation powers

Published: 05 Sep. 2025, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho answers questions from lawmakers during a National Assembly session at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul on Aug. 26. [NEWS1]

The Democratic Party is pressing ahead with prosecutorial reform, aiming to finalize legislation before Chuseok holiday. At the center of the debate is the proposal to abolish prosecutors’ supplementary investigation powers, raising concerns about unintended consequences.

Noh Man-seok, acting prosecutor general, voiced opposition during a recent visit to the Busan High Prosecutors’ Office and District Prosecutors’ Office. He stressed that “it is not just a right but an obligation for prosecutors to uncover the substantive truth through supplementary investigations while observing due process.” His warning reflected fears that abolition could harm public rights. Considering the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act, and conditions in courtrooms, his concerns resonate widely.

Inside the prosecution, divisions are evident. Im Eun-jung, chief prosecutor of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors’ Office, argued for abolishing supplementary powers entirely. In response, An Mi-hyun of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office said, “Ending supplementary investigations is not reform but the collapse of the criminal justice system.” Jung Kyung-jin, deputy chief of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office, added that the debate seemed “driven more by politics than by the public.” Their exchanges underscore the risk that reform could deepen internal strife and erode public trust.

The issue stems from earlier reforms under the Moon Jae-in administration, when prosecutorial and police powers were restructured and the National Office of Investigation was established. Yet complaints mounted about delays in handling cases. Now, if the planned Serious Crimes Investigation Agency is created under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, investigative authority could become overly concentrated, weakening checks and balances.

From the perspective of citizens, the loss of supplementary powers means that if police investigations are flawed, victims may have no recourse. “Case ping-pong” between agencies could intensify, lengthening delays and increasing frustration. Even progressive legal scholars have noted abuses since the oversight of police by prosecutors has weakened. Past cases, such as the death of student activist Park Jong-chul under police torture in 1987, highlight how prosecutorial follow-up investigations have uncovered rights violations and corrected mishandled cases.

Curbing the influence of politicized prosecutors, often associated with the “Yoon Suk Yeol faction,” is necessary. But eliminating supplementary powers altogether would also strip rank-and-file prosecutors handling everyday crimes of vital functions. That would amount to overreach, and the victims would ultimately be ordinary citizens.

The Democratic Party plans to push amendments to the Government Organization Act, including creating a Public Prosecution Office and the new agency for serious crimes, in a vote scheduled for Sept. 25. Supplementary powers would then be dealt with later. Yet reforms that race ahead without weighing public costs risk undermining justice.

The presidential office and Justice Ministry should heed voices within the prosecution and the broader legal community. Reform must be guided not by political slogans but by the imperative to protect citizens’ rights.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.