South Korea’s impeached prime minister is reinstated as country’s acting leader

Five of the eight justices on the court said that while the impeachment motion against Han was valid, there were not enough grounds to impeach him as he did not violate the constitution or South Korean law regarding the martial law announcement or potential insurrection, according to a court statement.

Two justices ruled that the impeachment motion against Han, who was acting president at the time, was invalid as two-thirds of lawmakers in parliament did not pass it. One justice voted to impeach Han.

South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol detained

The court’s statement said Han’s alleged legal violations could not be determined to “constitute a betrayal of public trust”.

Han welcomed the ruling and called for national unity to address economic challenges and global uncertainties.

“In this era of great geopolitical transformation, I will do my best to ensure that the Republic of Korea continues to develop by joining forces with government cabinet members and the National Assembly,” he said in a statement.

The National Assembly, South Korea’s elected legislature, had accused Han of siding with Yoon by refusing to appoint three justices to fill vacancies on the nine-member Constitutional Court.

Lawmakers argued that this obstruction hindered Yoon’s impeachment proceedings, as at least seven justices are required to reach a verdict.

Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok served as acting president during Han’s suspension, appointing two of the three justices and enabling the court to proceed with deliberations on Yoon’s case.

Han has served in leadership positions for more than three decades under five presidents, both conservative and liberal. In a country sharply politically divided, he had been seen as a rare example of an official whose varied career transcended party lines.

Still, the opposition-led legislature accused him of not doing enough to thwart Yoon’s decision to declare martial law, which he denied.

Lawmakers also criticised Han for refusing to appoint a permanent special counsel to investigate insurrection charges against Yoon and failing to enact two special counsel bills targeting Yoon and First Lady Kim Keon-hee. However, the court ruled that these actions did not constitute legal violations.

“The court stopped short of ruling on the legitimacy of Yoon’s martial law declaration,” Lim Ji-bong, a Sogang University Law School professor, told This Week in Asia. “Had it done so, it could have provoked a backlash from Yoon’s supporters by signalling that Yoon would be held accountable and removed from office.”

As it happened: South Korea lifts martial law after dramatic night of political upheaval

Without solid evidence against Han, the court accepted his insistence that he had been unaware of Yoon’s martial law decision in advance.

Han also said that he had objected to the move.

Analysts cautioned against interpreting Han’s reinstatement as an indication of Yoon’s fate. “These are separate cases,” said Lee Heon-hwan, former head of the Constitutional Court’s Constitutional Research Institute.

“Yoon’s supporters may hope that Han’s reinstatement signals his return to office, but that’s wishful thinking.”

Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung reacted to the ruling by saying that he respected the court’s decision while wondering aloud if “the people” would agree.

Tensions have risen since the court concluded hearings on Yoon’s impeachment on February 25.

Some opposition lawmakers have launched hunger strikes demanding Yoon’s removal, while some of Yoon’s supporters have shaved their heads in protest against his impeachment.

A Gallup Korea poll released on Friday showed that 58 per cent of respondents supported impeaching Yoon – a five-percentage-point drop from the previous week.