The government's bill to establish the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA) drew sharp criticism from legal experts at a National Assembly public hearing, with panelists arguing the legislation would undermine investigative independence.
Three of four experts who participated in the hearing criticized the government's SCIA bill. They called it "self-contradictory" that an agency created to address concerns about prosecutorial independence would itself operate under the direction of the Interior Minister.
The criticism emerged despite President Lee Jae-myung's claim that the administration had submitted a "softened" version of the bill after incorporating some input from prosecutors and legal professionals. Lee had stated that "holding power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want."
Jeon Hong-kyu, managing partner at law firm Haerang, questioned the Interior Minister's supervisory authority over the SCIA at the hearing held at the National Assembly on Wednesday.
"The reason for separating the prosecution from the Ministry of Justice is to prevent political interference, but giving the Interior Minister directive authority over the SCIA raises concerns that regime-tailored investigations will continue," Jeon said. "It is inconsistent to grant directive authority to the newly established SCIA when no such specific investigative directive authority exists over the National Investigation Headquarters."
Cha Jin-ah, a professor at Korea University Law School, raised concerns about converting existing prosecutors into SCIA investigators.
"Given the differences between the status of a prosecutor and that of an investigator, I question how many prosecutors would volunteer to become SCIA investigators," Cha said. "Telling prosecutors to work as investigators without considering their existing status and authority is essentially saying you don't want prosecutors. If investigations cannot proceed properly as a result, the public will suffer."
Song Young-hoon, partner at law firm Siwoo, criticized the bill's lack of legal clarity and excessive reliance on presidential decrees.
"The so-called SCIA does not define even the minimum conceptual scope of the 'six major crimes' under its jurisdiction in the law itself, vaguely delegating this to presidential decrees," Song said. "Compared to the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Corruption Investigation Office Act, this significantly reduces institutional predictability. This clearly demonstrates that the government bill was hastily drafted."
Song also raised concerns about the composition of the SCIA chief nomination committee. The committee requires approval from six of nine members to recommend a candidate, but five members represent the government side.
"If just one person among the Korean Bar Association president, the Korean Law Professors Association president, or the Law School Association chairman is pro-government or pro-ruling party, the structure makes it easy to appoint someone aligned with the administration as SCIA chief," Song said. "It is essential to redesign the provisions to ensure candidates with political neutrality are recommended."
Shin Al-chan, managing partner at law firm Sedam, was the only expert who expressed support for the bill.
"Being placed under the Interior Minister is a typical arrangement in our administrative system," Shin said. "For example, the National Police Agency is also established as an agency under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. It is difficult to conclude that investigative independence is compromised simply because an investigative agency belongs to the executive branch."
Shin added that "the government bill establishes checks on personnel and organizational management through a nomination committee, personnel committee, and inspector system. In light of these provisions, political neutrality and investigative independence cannot be doubted merely because the SCIA falls under the Interior Ministry."