Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae used a National Assembly audit on October 6 to give his first public account of how he responded during the December 3 martial law crisis. After declining to take the witness oath, Cho produced two prepared pages and spoke for about six minutes, repeatedly arguing that the Supreme Court had recognized the constitutional problem and had not cooperated with the martial law authorities.
Cho said the martial law command requested either judicial personnel or a list of names. He told lawmakers that he instructed court officials not to provide either because the request was unconstitutional. The account marked a sharper position than his public comment immediately after the crisis, when he said the procedures involved would need to be examined.
A delayed account becomes the central dispute
The timing is central to the dispute. According to MBC, Cho had not previously described his actions that night in public, while the head of the National Court Administration characterized the military action as an unconstitutional exercise of command authority about a week after martial law was lifted. Sitting judges had also called on the judiciary to declare the measure unconstitutional.
Cho said he ordered court officials not to send personnel or provide names because the request was unconstitutional
Cho spoke after Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Ki-pyo challenged his refusal to take the oath and answer questions. The Dong-A Ilbo reported that a chief justice had not directly responded to lawmakers in such an active manner during an audit since parliamentary audits resumed after the 1987 constitutional revision. His prepared intervention therefore carried institutional significance beyond the immediate argument over his conduct.
- Audit appearance
- October 6, 2026
- Prepared statement
- About six minutes based on two pages
- Core assertion
- The judiciary did not cooperate with the martial law command
Cho also rejected accusations that he remained silent after the violent disturbance at the Seoul Western District Court. He said he delayed visiting because he was advised that an immediate appearance could interfere with efforts to stabilize the scene. He further cited a damages lawsuit filed by the National Court Administration against alleged organizers, although MBC reported that the action was filed in late August, roughly one year and seven months after the incident.
The hearing leaves two distinct questions. One is whether Choโs account of rejecting the martial law commandโs request can be independently documented through instructions, messages or testimony from court officials. The other is whether his delayed public explanation and the timing of later legal action are consistent with his assertion that the judiciary responded promptly. Further parliamentary questioning and any release of contemporaneous court records will determine how much of the dispute can move from competing political claims to verified chronology.