Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won bows after a press conference announcing his withdrawal as nominee at the National Assembly Communication Hall in Yeouido, Yeongdeung District, Seoul, on Sept. 19.NEWS1
Kim Hyoung-gu
The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.
The Ministry of Justice, ironically, has often found itself at the center of controversies over unfairness. The same was also true in the United States, where I spent the past three years as a correspondent.
U.S. President Donald Trump, who faced criminal indictments under the previous Joe Biden administration, including over hush-money payments stemming from a sex scandal, called the cases “weaponization of justice” and sought to remake the U.S. Department of Justice. Loyalty was his foremost criterion. He wanted a hard-line loyalist as attorney general to pursue his political enemies.
Yet his choices repeatedly became embroiled in controversy or met unhappy endings. Matt Gaetz, his first nominee for attorney general, withdrew before a confirmation hearing amid allegations including sexual misconduct involving a minor.
Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general who was hurriedly tapped next, also met a harsh end. A Trump loyalist who had joined his defense team during his first impeachment trial, she was ousted after 14 months. Trump had grown angry over the slow pace of investigations into his political adversaries.
After those failures, Trump turned to current Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer who directly represented him in criminal cases. Appointing the lawyer who defended Trump against his own legal jeopardy to lead the Justice Department has fueled criticism that the national criminal justice system is being privatized. Critics lament that the attorney general has become the president’s personal sword and shield.
Korean politics has followed a trajectory that is not so different. There is broad agreement that the beginning of the erosion of public support for the Moon Jae-in administration came with his decision to push through Cho Kuk’s appointment as justice minister. The Moon government took office after the “Candlelight Revolution” promising fairness and justice, but accusations of double standards symbolized by the Cho Kuk scandal weakened that message and divided the country.
His successor, Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae, became another major liability. A confrontation that began over prosecution personnel decisions escalated into unprecedented events, including Choo’s exercise of investigative command authority and the suspension and disciplinary action against then-Prosecutor General Yoon Suk Yeol. Ironically, the effort to force Yoon out elevated him as a figure who stood up to the administration, and ultimately helped propel a change of government.
What, then, is the justice minister’s role? The minister must defend the Constitution and criminal justice system, represent the state in litigation and demonstrate equality before the law. Yet the office’s immense power also makes it a dangerous instrument that governing authorities may be tempted to appropriate. In the United States and elsewhere, leaders have often wanted to place their closest loyalists in the post. History shows that when they succumb to that temptation, public trust is often the first casualty.
Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won withdrew on Saturday amid controversies over alleged lobbying involving the Drug Ministry, alleged links to stock manipulators and alleged preferential treatment involving a care facility connected to his spouse.
There were multiple questions about his suitability, but the most sensitive issue lay elsewhere: his record as head of a group advocating the withdrawal of prosecutions against the president. At the heart of the collapse in confidence was concern that he might shake up the criminal justice system to eliminate President Lee Jae Myung’s legal risks.
Attention now turns to Lee’s next nominee. Choosing another person seen as a shield for the administration or a means of resolving the president’s legal problems would only further alienate public opinion. The government must select someone fit to be a public servant, not a presidential loyalist, recognizing that the next appointment could be consequential for the administration.
The next minister should demonstrate clearly why “justice” is in the ministry’s name. When the president’s wishes conflict with the principles of law, the minister must be able to choose the law. Only then can the Lee administration rebuild public trust and restore momentum to its governing.
That is not a matter of personnel. It is a test of whether justice will remain an institution of the state, rather than presidential power.
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.
