Ex-South Korea leader Choi Sang-mok indicted in connection with martial law declaration News
Choi Kwang-mo, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Ex-South Korea leader Choi Sang-mok indicted in connection with martial law declaration

South Korea’s former acting prime minister and president Choi Sang-mok was indicted on Thursday on charges related to the brief imposition of martial law in December 2024 by then-President Yoon Suk Yeol, becoming the latest high-profile figure embroiled in legal troubles over the case.

The indictment was formally announced by Special Prosecutor Park Ji-young in a regular briefing. Choi, who served as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance, was charged alongside former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo with dereliction of duty for their failure to appoint Constitutional Court justices recommended by the National Assembly in the chaotic period following President Yoon’s impeachment. Han successively served as Acting President at the time from December 2024 and from March to May 2025.

The special prosecutor and the former leader are now set for a landmark legal confrontation over constitutional governance. The prosecutor’s case asserts that the officials’ inaction created a judicial vacuum that helped enable the subsequent declaration of martial law. The defense will likely argue they were exercising discretionary judgment during an unprecedented political crisis.

According to the special prosecutor’s findings, Choi, upon becoming acting president, appointed two of the three recommended justices but withheld the appointment of Ma Eun-hyeok, citing a lack of bipartisan agreement, a decision now deemed a criminal failure of duty. The charges are rooted in South Korea’s Public Official Election Act and statutes concerning the neglect of official duty.

Consequently, Choi and Han are now liable to face trial on charges that carry significant legal and political consequences. Their indictments are part of a broader sweep by the special prosecutor, who also indicted several former presidential aides for abuse of power related to the flawed nomination process for other justices.

The indictment, while a major step in a historic accountability process, is still a partial resolution to the deep constitutional crisis. It addresses the alleged legal failures of individuals but does not itself repair the institutional trust shattered by the chain of events—impeachment, judicial vacancy and martial law—that constituted a severe test for South Korea’s democracy.

Against this landscape, the judicial process faces the immense task of delivering legal clarity amid intense political polarization. The subsequent developments, including the court proceedings, their verdicts, and the lasting political ramifications for South Korea’s power structures, remain yet to be seen.