Home > Opinion > Columns

Prosecution reform’s unfinished drama

Published: 20 Mar. 2026, 00:02

Kim Seung-hyun

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The unfolding debate over prosecution reform resembles an absurdist play. Around the announcement of a “party-government-presidential office agreement,” the ruling camp has appeared to stage a performance detached from logic. Like a play that fails to communicate with its audience, the series of statements has not resonated with the public.

Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae speaks while holding bills on the Public Prosecution Office and the Serious Crimes Investigation Office during an emergency press conference on prosecution reform at the National Assembly in Seoul on the morning of March 17. [LIM HYUN-DONG]

The most pressing question — whether prosecutors will retain the supplementary investigative authority they currently hold — has been postponed until after the June local elections, with little explanation. While there is broad agreement on the need to reform an overly powerful prosecution service, the implications of removing its core functions have not been fully examined. The public is left waiting, uncertain of what is to come.

Confusion began with an emergency press conference on Tuesday. Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae said he hoped there would be no further controversy over prosecution reform, crediting public support and President Lee Jae Myung’s leadership for the outcome. Yet key provisions in the proposed legislation were removed. Clauses that allowed prosecutors in the proposed Public Prosecution Office to be involved in investigations were deleted, along with powers related to warrant requests, supervision of special judicial police and notification of investigative initiation by a separate investigative agency.

While these revisions reflected the views of hardliners, Rep. Kim Yong-min, a member of the National Assembly’s judiciary committee, described the legislation as incomplete. He argued that the separation of investigation and prosecution must be fully realized through a comprehensive revision of the Criminal Procedure Act. Current law still grants prosecutors investigative and supplementary investigative authority under Articles 196 and 197-2. His remarks suggested a lack of alignment within the ruling camp.

About an hour later, President Lee made a notably ambiguous comment during a Cabinet meeting. “Leader Jung announced it? Then is it now complete?” he asked, before reiterating that the core principle of reform is that investigations should be handled by investigative agencies, not prosecutors. He added that the scope of prosecutorial involvement should be minimized, but stopped short of clarifying whether it would be eliminated.

The use of the word “minimized” has been interpreted as indicating that discussions over supplementary investigative authority remain unresolved. Lee also emphasized the importance of deliberation, expressing some regret over how the process had unfolded.

These two episodes suggest that the ruling party, government and presidential office have not been fully transparent about the issue. President Lee had previously stated in January that supplementary investigative authority may be necessary in exceptional cases, a position he has not withdrawn. Having spent much of his career as a lawyer observing police practices, he is known to support checks and balances. Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho has also warned that without the ability to request supplementary investigations, it would be difficult to prevent cases from being improperly closed.

Further questions arose the day after the agreement was announced, when Jung appeared on a YouTube channel hosted by Kim Eo-jun. Praising the president’s decision, Jung described the process as one of mutual understanding. The appearance drew attention given that the same channel had recently promoted allegations of a “prosecution deal,” casting doubt on the government’s reform efforts.

Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae, left, appears on a YouTube show hosted by Kim Eo-jun on March 18, a day after announcing the final versions of bills on the Serious Crimes Investigation Office and the Public Prosecution Office. [YOUTUBE CAPTURE]

Despite the controversy, Jung did not address the earlier claims and instead spoke of the need for strict confidentiality during negotiations to avoid backlash. This appeared at odds with President Lee’s earlier call for open and extensive deliberation.

The situation has left many observers frustrated. Repeated inconsistencies and partial explanations suggest that key considerations remain undisclosed. As the June local elections and the party’s leadership contest in August approach, internal political calculations are likely to intensify.

More concerning is the possibility that an unclear criminal justice system is taking shape amid these dynamics. If so, the consequences will not be limited to political actors. The public may ultimately bear the costs of a process that has yet to reach a coherent conclusion.

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.