S. Korean PM Han reinstated, but split verdict hints at greater impasse for Yoon’s case

SEOUL - South Korean Prime Minister Han Duck-soo is back in office, nearly three months after the National Assembly voted to impeach him over his alleged role in

the Dec 3, 2024, martial law fiasco.

He is also acting president again, as President Yoon Suk Yeol remains suspended over his short-lived imposition of martial law.

In its verdict announced on March 24, the country’s Constitutional Court dismissed Mr Han’s impeachment, saying that the “cited violations (of the Prime Minister) were not of a level warranting the loss of public trust”.

The decision by the eight-judge bench, however, is not the anticipated unanimous one, signalling that there could be greater than expected impasse in the more complicated case of Mr Yoon’s impeachment.

Following the court ruling, Mr Han wasted no time in returning to work.

Arriving at the Seoul government complex merely 20 minutes after the court’s announcement, he told reporters that he would be devoting “full efforts to ensuring stable governance”, citing the need to secure national interests in the ongoing trade war launched by US President Donald Trump, who is set to unleash even more tariffs come April 2.

South Korea is bracing itself to be among the “dirty 15” countries targeted for reciprocal tariffs by the US for having the highest tariffs and large trading volumes with the US.

Amid the power vacuum during the political turmoil following the failed martial law decree, Seoul authorities have been struggling to engage with the new Trump administration.

This has left them

blindsided by the US Department of Energy

’s move in January – and found out by the Koreans only in March – to include South Korea in its blacklist of “sensitive countries” singled out for “national security, nuclear non-proliferation or terrorism support reasons”.

Mr Han also called for national unity as increasing polarisation over the support for and against Mr Yoon’s impeachment has seen tens of thousands of people holding mass rallies for many weekends in a row since the Dec 3, 2024, debacle. 

“The majority of the people I have served for nearly 50 years do not want the country to lean to the left or to the right. They just want it to move upward and forward,” said the 75-year-old who has previously indicated that this premiership would be his last tour of duty.

In Mr Han’s impeachment case, the judges were split in their opinions. Five judges rejected the impeachment, while two judges threw out the impeachment motion entirely.

Only one judge was in favour of the impeachment.

Mr Han’s trial hearing had concluded in a single 90-minute session on Feb 19, during which he had insisted that he had no prior knowledge of Mr Yoon’s intention to declare martial law, and denied involvement in Mr Yoon’s alleged mobilisation of troops to block access to the National Assembly so that lawmakers could not overturn his decree.

The split judgment comes somewhat as a surprise in a relatively straightforward case.

Analysts say this hints at greater dissent among the same judges over Mr Yoon’s far more complex case.

Seoul National University law professor Lee Jae-min noted that the charges against Mr Han were relatively unsubstantial and that most observers expected his case to be dismissed.

“But the fact that the case was dismissed without unanimous agreement among the judges seems to indicate that they are still contemplating on the key issues of the impeachment against Mr Yoon,” he told The Straits Times.

Associate Professor Hannah Kim, from Seoul’s Sogang University Graduate School of International Studies, said that for Mr Han’s case to take 87 days to conclude indicates “how difficult it was to even arrive at this verdict”.

“It also suggests that a similar situation is potentially happening in the case of President Yoon and may well be the reason why the verdict is being delayed,” she said.

She added that the court is unlikely to “reveal such internal divisions publicly, since doing so could further deepen societal polarisation”.

Prof Lee pointed out that from the court’s 10-page-long verdict, it was clear that it had taken pains to avoid direct references to the martial law incident, apart from absolving Mr Han of his involvement. 

“I think it is because the deliberations are still ongoing, and it is now more difficult to predict the final outcome of Mr Yoon’s case, which is why the court wanted to avoid any indication at all of what might be going on with Mr Yoon’s case,” he said.

The court was widely expected to announce its decision on Mr Yoon’s impeachment on March 14, which would have been two weeks after the conclusion of his trial on Feb 25. But it has remained silent thus far. 

Pundits now have their eyes on March 28, as they see the closure of

Mr Han’s case as a prelude to Mr Yoon’s impeachment verdict

. 

In addition to impeachment, Mr Yoon faces separate criminal charges of insurrection, with the trial hearings set to begin from April 14. 

While Mr Han’s acquittal had been anticipated, the South Korean opposition’s impeachment spree has shown no sign of abating. 

On March 21, a coalition of five opposition parties filed an impeachment motion against Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Economy and Finance Choi Sang-mok, who was acting president for the three months during Mr Han’s suspension. 

The opposition is accusing Mr Choi of dereliction of duty for his refusal to appoint a ninth judge to fill up the Constitutional Court bench. 

Floor leader Park Chan-dae of the largest opposition party, the Democratic Party (DP), told reporters on March 24 that Mr Han’s acquittal was a separate matter from Mr Choi’s impending impeachment, and that they would push for Mr Choi’s impeachment to be put to a vote by March 27. 

Within the DP, whose leader Lee Jae-myung is the favourite to win in a presidential election, are those who are opposed to impeaching Mr Choi as they think there is no real benefit to the party in doing so.

Indeed, Prof Kim said that with Mr Han’s return as acting president, the impeachment of Mr Choi has effectively lost its relevance.

She said that “it remains unclear how much such a move would resonate with their supporters”.