Does key witnesses’ absence at impeachment hearing reflect Park’s intention?

Does key witnesses’ absence at impeachment hearing reflect Park’s intention?. January. 06, 2017 07:12. .

Attorneys of President Park Geun-hye and members of the National Assembly’s presidential impeachment committee had heated legal arguments during the second formal hearing in Park’s impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court on Thursday. While the impeachment committee members argued that the president had committed serious violation of laws that justified her impeachment, the presidential attorneys denied the prosecution’s investigation results, citing a lack of evidence and legal basis.

However, major witnesses including the president continued to refuse to show up at the court hearing or concealed themselves. Park rejected the top court’s two requests for her appearance at the hearing. The court could not even deliver its request for appearance to two of her secretaries who were allegedly deeply involved in the case because their whereabouts were unknown. If the written requests are not delivered to them, the court cannot have them arrested for no court appearance. Unless they are dropped from the list of witnesses to be questioned, the trial proceedings have to be postponed. Another witness – a presidential bodyguard – did not show up at the Thursday hearting after submitting a letter explaining why he could not attend it.

It is suspicious that the presidential aides refuse to show up at the court. Had the president secretly ordered them, it seems that they read the president’s mind and refuse to appear at the hearing in an organized manner. Such behavior is seen as intended to cause delays in the impeachment proceedings and ultimately inducing the court’s overturning of the case. The term of Park Han-chul, president of the Constitutional Court, expires on January 31, while Justice Lee Jung-mi retires on March 13. President Park seems to have concluded that the less justices there are at the Constitutional Court, the less likely the court will reach the two-thirds vote (six out of nine justices) required to approve the presidential impeachment. However, it is not impossible for the top court to reach a conclusion with two less justices. And there is no legal flaw in the court reaching a ruling with seven justices.

Former U.S. President Richard Nixon resigned as his impeachment was imminent. Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff showed up at the upper house to make her case against her impeachment. We cannot blame the president and her aides for exercising their rights to hide themselves, absent themselves from court hearings, or remain silent. However, the president is politically and morally obligated to tell the truth as a key figure in the unprecedented scandal that shook up the entire country and paralyzed the government.