Is the Arrest of Ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol Legal?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Yoon Suk Yeol challenges the legality of his arrest.
- The court hearing commenced behind closed doors.
- If successful, Yoon could stand trial without detention.
- Serious allegations of evidence tampering are at stake.
- Legal representatives claim the investigation is unlawful.
Seoul, July 18 (NationPress) A Seoul court convened on Friday to address former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol's appeal against his arrest amid a special counsel investigation into his failed attempt to impose martial law. The closed-door hearing at the Seoul Central District Court commenced at 10:15 am, focusing on the legality of his arrest and whether it should continue.
Yoon arrived at the court around 9 am and was taken directly into a holding cell in a transport vehicle to avoid media interaction, as reported by Yonhap news agency.
The ousted president filed for a court review on Wednesday, shortly after his arrest at the Seoul Detention Centre in Uiwang, just south of the capital. He faces five significant charges related to his martial law attempt on December 3.
If the court rules in Yoon's favor, he could be released and stand trial without further detention.
The court is required to deliver its decision within 24 hours following the hearing.
Special counsel Cho Eun-suk's team is likely to argue for the arrest to remain in effect, citing the seriousness of the charges Yoon faces and the potential risk of him destroying evidence or influencing witness testimony. They may also highlight Yoon's refusal to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Yoon has skipped his insurrection trial on two occasions, stating he will not participate in any future hearings unless Cho's team is removed from the courtroom.
His legal representatives contend that his arrest is unnecessary since the former president poses no flight risk and his health is deteriorating.
Furthermore, Yoon's lawyers assert that the investigation led by Cho's team is unlawful, claiming it significantly infringes upon the rights of the defendant.