An elder brother of the late President Roh Moo-hyun was sent back home early Thursday morning after undergoing rigorous questioning from prosecutors. Roh Gun-pyeong is suspected of peddling his influence to secure a presidential pardon for Sung Woan-jong, a business tycoon who committed suicide in April, at the end of his brother’s term in 2007.
During the interrogation, the elder Roh reportedly admitted that he had been contacted by Sung’s aides but denied that he had accepted kickbacks. He is one of the three named by the prosecution earlier this week over the investigation into the bribery list that Sung left before killing himself. The two others are Rep. Kim Han-gil, former chairman of the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy, and Rep. Rhee In-je of the ruling Saenuri Party.
These three figures are not among the eight politicians listed in the memo retrieved from Sung’s pocket after he was found dead. No one can dispute that the prosecution should carry out investigations without sanctuary, and in this regard, even the former opposition leader can’t be an exception.
But few will be convinced of the legitimacy of the prosecution’s probe if prosecutors only target less suspicious figures while allowing powerful ruling camp politicians to evade the law. There is no question that the core of the prosecution’s latest investigation is to confirm if the eight in question received bribes or illicit political funds. On top of that, it will be necessary to look into suspicions that Sung’s money may have been used as President Park Geun-hye’s election funds before the 2012 presidential poll.
However, what has been uncovered so far is disheartening. The prosecution has only indicted former Prime Minister Lee Wan-koo and South Gyeongsang Province Governor Hong Joon-pyo, but failed to confirm charges against the remaining six. The election fund allegations have not been touched yet.
The prosecution’s difficulty in probing Sung’s "memogate’’ is understandable, considering the suicide of the key figure and a lack of hard evidence. But it defies our understanding that the prosecution is trying to wrap up its probe after questioning only one of the six suspected of receiving money. Moreover, the prosecution reportedly has not traced the bank accounts of those implicated in the scandal.
Against this backdrop, it seems unfair for law enforcement to summon those not listed in the memo without evidence. We vividly remember that the prosecution pledged an independent and fair probe when it launched a special investigation team in April.
The latest bribery scandal has laid bare the shameful face of the prosecution, which is awfully weak to the "living power,’’ once again. If so, there seems to be no other way but to appoint an independent counsel through partisan negotiations.