Chief Justice Cho Says "Difficult to Testify at Audit" ... "Arbitrary" vs. "Intimidation"

[Anchor]

Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has submitted a written opinion to the National Assembly stating that it is difficult for him to testify at the parliamentary audit of the Supreme Court tomorrow (October 6). Previously, Chief Justice Cho had said he would explain his refusal to re-recommend a Supreme Court justice nominee during the parliamentary audit, but he maintained that appearing as a witness would run counter to the independence of the judiciary. The ruling and opposition parties continued their clash.

Kim Kwan-jin reports.

[Reporter]

The Democratic Party disclosed that Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae submitted a written opinion to the National Assembly on October 2 stating that it would be difficult for him to appear as a witness and answer questions at the Supreme Court's parliamentary audit tomorrow.

The opinion stated that the demand for testimony regarding his authority to recommend Supreme Court justices violates the separation of powers and judicial independence.

He also argued that it runs counter to the intent of the National Assembly Act, which does not impose an obligation on the chief justice to attend and answer questions.

He also cited the inappropriateness of disclosing discussions with the president and the possibility of an investigation proceeding due to related criminal complaints as reasons for his non-attendance.

Earlier, Chief Justice Cho spoke about his refusal to re-recommend a Supreme Court justice nominee as follows:

[Cho Hee-dae / Supreme Court Chief Justice (September 28): "I heard there is much that people are curious about. I will speak about those matters going forward through the parliamentary audit and other opportunities."]

However, he drew the line at answering questions as a witness in the parliamentary audit, prompting fierce backlash from the Democratic Party.

[Seo Young-kyo / Chair of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee (Democratic Party Lawmaker): "It is a violation of the separation of powers and, rather than judicial independence, it is an arbitrary act that seeks to reign above the law."]

In parliamentary audits of the Supreme Court, the chief justice has typically departed after delivering opening remarks while the Minister of National Court Administration answered questions; taking this into account, the ruling bloc passed a resolution in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee to adopt Chief Justice Cho as a 'general witness,' saying they would question him directly on the exercise of his recommendation authority.

The Democratic Party maintains that he has an obligation to attend as a general witness, and stated that it will decide whether to take legal action after observing Chief Justice Cho's response.

The People Power Party criticized it as 'politics of intimidation' aimed at humiliating the head of the judiciary.

Chief Justice Cho, who was also selected as a general witness last year and submitted an opinion of non-attendance, appeared at the parliamentary audit site and delivered opening remarks, but left after about an hour without taking a witness oath or answering questions.

(Video by Shin Dong-hwan | Video Editing by Park Seon-soo | Design by Kim Min-young)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.