Concerns are mounting over the political neutrality of investigative agencies after Kim Ji-yong, the first chief of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency, attended a Cabinet meeting. Critics say the agency, launched to end what the government called the prosecution's "politicization of investigations," may instead be moving closer to political power.
President Lee Jae-myung has pushed back forcefully against the controversy over the agency chief's Cabinet attendance, even raising the possibility of impeachment and criminal punishment. Still, legal experts say the very structure in which the president and the head of an investigative agency meet on a regular basis could have a chilling effect on investigations into those in power.
According to legal sources on the 24th, Kim attended his first Cabinet meeting on the 20th, immediately after taking office. A day earlier, on the 19th, when asked on his first day at work whether he would attend, he said he would review the relevant laws and decide after consulting with related agencies — then sat in on the meeting the very next day.
Previous administrations maintained a practice of not having the heads of investigative and prosecuting agencies attend Cabinet meetings on a regular basis. According to data that Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party obtained from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, there was not a single case of a prosecutor general attending a Cabinet meeting from 2000 through last year. The intent was to safeguard independence by avoiding a situation in which the head of an investigative agency meets weekly with the president and Cabinet ministers, who could themselves become subjects of an investigation.
But after Lee instructed in December last year that the heads of sub-ministerial agencies also attend, the prosecutor general and the acting national police commissioner began sitting in from early this year. After the Major Crimes Investigation Agency was launched, Deputy Chief Jeon Jong-min attended on the 6th and the 13th of this month as acting chief.
Legal experts say the legality of attending Cabinet meetings should be distinguished from whether it is appropriate for the head of an investigative agency. Article 12 of the Government Organization Act and related Cabinet meeting rules stipulate that heads of major central administrative agencies designated by the prime minister may sit in on Cabinet meetings and speak on matters under their jurisdiction, a right guaranteed by law. That means there is no legal problem with the agency chief or other investigative agency heads attending.
Even so, some argue that investigative agencies cannot be treated the same as other sub-ministerial agencies, even though the president holds authority to direct and supervise administrative bodies. The agency falls under the Interior Ministry, and the interior minister's authority to direct investigations is written into law. If direct contact with the president also becomes routine, the thinking goes, the intentions of political power could influence the direction of investigations.
A lawyer who formerly served as a chief prosecutor stressed that "when the head of an investigative agency reports directly to the president, investigative activity targeting the president or related figures is bound to be chilled," adding that "the head of an agency in charge of investigations needs to maintain independence starting with how things appear."
Critics also say that Kim, who had said he would decide on attendance after consulting with related agencies, contradicted his own emphasis on "ending the politicization of investigations" by attending the meeting right after taking office. Cha Jin-a, a professor at Korea University Law School, said that "in past administrations, the heads of investigative agencies, including the prosecutor general, never took part in Cabinet meetings, so having them attend is tantamount to directing investigations," adding, "It is questionable whether it befits a democratic country for the head of an agency created out of criticism of 'political prosecutors' to sit in on Cabinet meetings."
Civil society groups also say regular attendance should be avoided. In a commentary on the 15th, the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy opposed attendance by the heads of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Agency, saying that "a structure in which the heads of investigative and prosecuting agencies regularly attend meetings presided over by the president and share the direction of state affairs creates political pressure, even without instructions on specific cases."
Unease is also detected within the agency. Some prosecutors who moved to the agency say they left the prosecution service to avoid being drawn into politically charged investigations, only to worry that they may now be handling investigations driven by the demands of those in power. Along with concerns that the Anti-Corruption Investigation Bureau could be used as a channel for investigations ordered from above, questions have been raised over whether the first chief can block outside pressure and protect the organization.
Another lawyer who formerly served as a chief prosecutor said that "the reason heads of investigative agencies did not attend Cabinet meetings under any administration other than the current one was to guarantee the neutrality and independence of investigations," adding, "I think it is inappropriate for them to attend on a standing basis, apart from cases where it is genuinely necessary, such as consultations on anti-corruption policy."