Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae has told the National Assembly that he cannot testify as an ordinary witness at an audit scheduled for October 6, retreating from an earlier public statement that he would address questions through the parliamentary audit process. His written opinion, submitted to the Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee on October 2, places judicial independence and the confidentiality of presidential consultations at the center of the dispute.
The confrontation follows Cho’s refusal to accept President Lee Jae-myung’s request to submit another recommendation for a Supreme Court justice. After that decision drew questions late last month, Cho said there were many matters the public wanted to know about and that he would discuss them through the audit. His latest submission says that appearing as a witness and answering questions would be difficult, creating a clear gap between that earlier assurance and the position now delivered to lawmakers.
- Written opinion submitted
- October 2, 2026
- Scheduled judicial audit
- October 6, 2026
- Core dispute
- Whether the chief justice must testify as an ordinary witness
Cho’s first argument is constitutional. He said the chief justice’s authority to recommend Supreme Court justices is an independent power under Article 104, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. Requiring testimony about the exercise of that power, he argued, would conflict with the separation of powers, threaten judicial independence and exceed the proper limits of parliamentary inspection.
He also invoked Article 121 of the National Assembly Act, arguing that its decision not to impose a general attendance and response obligation on the chief justice supports his position. In addition, Cho said it would be inappropriate to disclose sensitive personnel matters or the details of consultations with the president while the appointment process remains active. He noted that a complaint has been filed over the exercise of his recommendation authority and said a future investigation could not be ruled out.
The Democratic Party rejects the claim that the normal treatment of a chief justice during an institutional audit resolves this case. Committee chair Seo Young-kyo said Cho was selected as an ordinary witness rather than merely appearing as the head of an audited institution. Under the party’s reading of the law governing testimony and appraisal before the National Assembly, that status carries an obligation to appear and testify.
Competing readings of oversight and independence
Ruling-party lawmakers are also framing the dispute as one of accountability rather than interference in a court case. They say the questions concern judicial administration and the recommendation process, not the outcome of a specific proceeding. The party has accused Cho of seeking an exceptional privilege unavailable to other witnesses and has urged him not to use judicial independence to resist the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Eui-kyeom highlighted Cho’s earlier promise to speak at the audit, calling the written refusal a reversal of his own words. Seo went further, arguing that refusing testimony would place the chief justice above the law. Other party figures have used even sharper language, with some calling for Cho to resign if he will not appear as a witness.
Cho said appearing as a witness and answering questions would be difficult because the request concerns an independent constitutional authority and sensitive consultations.
The practical dispute is narrower than the political rhetoric may suggest. Cho may still attend the audit in a limited institutional capacity, offer customary opening or closing remarks and decline substantive questioning as an ordinary witness. He followed a similar course at the previous year’s audit after being selected as an ordinary witness, citing judicial independence and declining to testify. A Supreme Court official said no specific plan for how Cho would participate this time had been communicated.
That distinction between physical presence and witness testimony will be central on October 6. If Cho attends but refuses answers, lawmakers are likely to argue that he has not complied with the witness summons. Cho, meanwhile, can maintain that his institutional appearance does not waive his objections to questioning about an independent constitutional authority or confidential discussions with the president.
The form of Cho’s appearance becomes decisive
The hearing will therefore test competing claims without necessarily settling them. The chief justice says compelled disclosure would damage the independence of the judiciary and expose sensitive appointment discussions. The committee majority says ordinary-witness status creates a legal duty and that oversight of judicial administration is not the same as interference in adjudication. The next decisive facts will be whether Cho appears, what form that appearance takes and whether he answers questions about the rejected request for a new recommendation.