A South Korean court has ordered the release of impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol from jail, more than a month after he was arrested and indicted over his controversial imposition of martial law. The ruling by the Seoul Central District Court allows Yoon to stand trial without being physically detained, marking a significant turn in the country’s ongoing political turmoil.
Legal justification for release
The Seoul Central District Court stated on Friday that it had accepted Yoon’s request for release because the legal period of his formal arrest had expired before his indictment in late January. The court also ruled that the investigative agency responsible for detaining Yoon before his formal arrest had no legal authority to investigate the criminal rebellion charges against him.
Yoon’s defence team welcomed the decision and called for his immediate release. His legal representatives argued that the charges were politically motivated and insisted that the former president had only been acting in the national interest. The presidential office also expressed support for the ruling, hoping Yoon would swiftly return to his duties.
However, under South Korean law, prosecutors have the right to temporarily hold a suspect while they pursue an appeal against a court’s ruling. This means Yoon’s release may not be immediate if prosecutors decide to challenge the decision.
Martial law and allegations of rebellion
The former president’s legal troubles stem from his abrupt imposition of martial law, which involved deploying troops and police forces to the National Assembly. The decree lasted only six hours before lawmakers were able to assemble and unanimously vote to overturn it.
Prosecutors allege that Yoon’s declaration of martial law amounted to rebellion, an offence that carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment or even the death penalty under South Korean law. Investigators claim that the deployment of security forces was not merely an effort to maintain order, as Yoon has claimed, but an attempt to obstruct lawmakers from voting against his decree.
Testimonies from high-ranking military and police officials have further implicated Yoon. Some have stated before the Constitutional Court and investigators that the president had ordered them to forcibly remove or detain lawmakers to prevent them from voting on the decree.
Yoon, however, has consistently defended his actions, arguing that his decision to declare martial law was necessary to safeguard the nation from what he described as the destabilising influence of the opposition Democratic Party. He has maintained that his goal was to maintain public order rather than subvert democracy.
Impact on impeachment proceedings
The ruling comes at a crucial moment, as Yoon awaits the outcome of his separate impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court. The hearings in that case concluded in late February, and the court is expected to deliver its verdict soon on whether to remove Yoon from office permanently or reinstate him.
If the Constitutional Court upholds his impeachment, Yoon will be officially removed from office, triggering a national election within two months to select his successor. This decision could further destabilise South Korea’s political landscape, as the country remains deeply divided between conservative and liberal factions.
Political and public reactions
Yoon’s arrest and impeachment have sparked massive protests across the country, with both his supporters and opponents taking to the streets in major cities, including Seoul. Critics argue that his actions were a dangerous abuse of power reminiscent of South Korea’s past military regimes, while his supporters insist he was acting in the nation’s best interests.
More Read
Legal experts believe the Constitutional Court’s ruling—whether in Yoon’s favour or against him—will likely deepen political polarisation. South Korea has a history of intense political divisions, and this case has only heightened tensions between the conservative and liberal camps.
Presidential immunity and martial law powers
Yoon’s arrest marked a historic moment, as he became the first South Korean president to be detained while in office. Normally, sitting presidents are immune from most criminal prosecutions, except in cases involving serious charges such as treason or rebellion.
Under South Korean law, a president has the authority to declare martial law in times of war or extreme national emergencies. However, legal experts argue that Yoon’s declaration did not meet these criteria, as South Korea was not facing an existential crisis when the decree was issued.
As Yoon prepares to stand trial, the country remains on edge, awaiting decisions that could redefine the nation’s political future. Whether he ultimately walks free or faces severe legal consequences, the case is set to leave a lasting impact on South Korean democracy.
