(EDITORIAL from the Korea Herald on April 21) - Summoning Roh

The prosecution is reported to have set a schedule to summon former President Roh Moo-hyun sometime this week for questioning in connection with the scandal involving his patron Park Yeon-cha. Prosecutors indicated that Roh would be criminally charged and an arrest warrant would be sought for him.

Debate is heating up online and around office coffee machines on the
appropriateness of putting the former president behind bars during the criminal
investigation. In political circles, opposition forces are crying out against the
Lee Myung-bak government's "attempt to destroy the liberal-left" through the Park
Yeon-cha probe, while no clear opinion is expressed from the ruling camp about
the prosecution's move to put Roh under arrest. Among senior politicians, Lee
Hoi-chang, who was defeated by Roh in the 2002 election and is now leading the
moderate opposition Liberty Forward Party, clarified his stand opposing Roh's
arrest. Lee, a legal professional, said that whatever charges Roh may face, there
was little possibility that he would flee from law enforcement or destroy
evidence - the two primary conditions for arresting a criminal suspect.
Moreover, Lee argued that arresting a former president would shame the Republic of
Korea in the international community. Some prosecutors remarked that they would
simply request a warrant from the court and the judge would do the necessary legal
study before deciding whether to issue it. But in this case, we are of the opinion
that it is the prosecution, rather than the court, that should carefully consider
whether it is necessary to place a former president under arrest, in view of the
nature of the offense he is suspected of. Under the Korean system, which sets no
bail before arrest, the court is to examine the reasons given for making an arrest
along with the evidence it provides to support the charges. All people should be
equally treated. No one, not even a former president, should be accorded privilege
in criminal procedures.
Yet, different individual circumstances allow discretion in authorities' judgment
about whether a suspect will flee or destroy evidence. In these considerations,
being a former president makes certain difference. The great principle in
criminal procedure is investigation without arrest. The 60-year history of the
republic has witnessed the arrests of two former presidents. Chun Doo-hwan and
Roh Tae-woo were charged with bribery involving hundreds of billion won each, and
treason in connection with the 1979 rebellion and the bloody suppression in 1980
of the Gwangju uprising. Common sense questions the adequacy of putting a third
former president into jail for investigation of a case incomparable to those
leveled against Chun and the older Roh. At this stage, we respect prosecutors'
endeavors to establish justice by uncovering all traces of illegal dealings
related to the former president. Still we would like to ask the prosecutors to
exercise a little more prudence in carrying out their duties to allow no grounds
for claims of political motivation. Talks in the prosecution about the possible
arrest of former president Roh are premature. And we are afraid that the leaking
of information by prosecution sources- indicating who gave how much money to whom
when and where even before indictment - go beyond the public's right to know.
(END)