Reforming the prosecution is seeing an added twist as the presidential office made it clear Monday it would oppose the parliamentary ad hoc panel's bipartisan decision to close down the Central Investigation Department (CID).
The bill to shut down the CID will face hurdles at the full session of the National Assembly due to opposition from Cheong Wa Dae. The opposition Democratic Party is calling for an immediate disbandment of the unit, which it described as a servant of those in power.
Despite the CID's role in bringing to light corruptions involving big wigs, the unit has raised public eyebrows. The unit seldom commands public confidence and respect. It has often initiated probes at the instruction of those in power. Its nickname is “sunflower” as it has been highly politicized.
Out of a preoccupation with indicting targeted figures, it has often abused its power at the risk of infringing upon human rights. The suicide of former President Roh Moo-hyun was partly attributed to its rude and indictment-oriented investigation.
It leaked unverified allegations before attempting to indict Roh. The leakage was a hackneyed method of humiliating suspects before formal indictments. This violates the universal adage that all are innocent until proven guilty.
Roh and a few high-profile figures killed themselves during its investigations. Questions must be raised whether the CID’s investigative methods are in line with international standards.
The unit has not always been fair. About 11 percent of the suspects it indicted were cleared of charges in court, far higher than the 0.31 percent of all indictments. It is subject to corruption and abuse as no effective institutional system exists to regulate its waywardness.
CID prosecutors are highly coveted as they can earn lucrative favors by incumbent junior investigators when they become lawyers. This is also an institutionalized crime that must be uprooted.
Prosecutors are not always to blame. The incumbent head of state had repeatedly abused the department as a tool for taming opposition and recalcitrant tycoons. They will get respect only when they stand behind the public, not those in power.
Despite its dubious record, the unit might be a necessary evil to root out crimes often involving VIPs. In return for scrapping the department, the National Assembly should provide an alternative for looking into crimes involving senior government officials, politicians, judges and prosecutors. Until an alternative proposal is found to check high-profile crimes, the CID must exist.
What is necessary is to seek ways of upgrading the transparency, political neutrality and impartiality of the department. The unit should be prudent in its indictments. It must not infringe upon the human rights of suspects. It must internationalize its investigative methods.
An alternative proposal is to decentralize the investigation authority of the prosecution, empowering the district offices to deal with such high-profile crimes. Prosecutors will become a constant target of reform unless they change their behavior, arrogance and sycophancy to those in power.