South Korea's ex-leader Yoon lay on floor of cell and refused to be questioned, prosecutors say
Prosecutors investigating influence-peddling allegations connected to Yoon and his wife had tried to get him to comply with an arrest warrant and attend questioning voluntarily, a spokesperson for the special prosecution said.
'But the suspect stubbornly refused to do so, while lying on the ground, not dressed in a prison uniform,' Oh Jung-hee told a news briefing. She said investigators would try again to bring him in, even if they had to use force.
Yoon was dressed only in his undershirt and underwear when prosecutors came to his cell, the Yonhap News Agency reported, citing the special prosecution.
Yu Jeong-hwa, one of Yoon's lawyers, told Reuters that bringing up what he was wearing in a small space where the temperature was close to 40 degrees Celsius (104°F) was a public insult to his dignity and showed how the state was violating inmates' human rights.
The former president was put back in a solitary cell at the Seoul Detention Center in July, as prosecutors investigating his short-lived declaration of martial law in December sought additional charges against him.
Yoon is already on trial for insurrection, a charge which is punishable by death or life imprisonment.
He also faces a string of other investigations led by special prosecutors including one into scandals surrounding his wife, former First Lady Kim Keon Hee, where the couple allegedly exerted inappropriate influence over elections.
Yoon has denied any wrongdoing and his lawyers have accused prosecutors of conducting a politically-motivated witch hunt.
The former president has repeatedly rejected requests by prosecutors to appear for questioning, citing health issues.
His lawyers said on Thursday that he was unwell due to preexisting conditions, including a condition that meant there was a risk of him losing his eyesight.
In a reference to Yoon's position as a former top prosecutor, Oh, the spokesperson for the special prosecution, said the case was being closely scrutinised by the public.
'The suspect has consistently highlighted the importance of laws, principles, fairness and common sense and through this case people are watching if the law applies equally to everyone,' Oh said.
Separately, investigators requested that Yoon's wife Kim, who has also denied any wrongdoing, attend questioning on August 6. Kim's lawyers have said she would cooperate with the investigation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring violations by Ramaphosa
Zuma and the MK party are clearly unhappy with the apex court's ruling. The MK party has accused the Constitutional Court of ignoring the 'most serious and flagrant constitutional violations perpetrated' by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party suffered a blow last week when the apex court dismissed their urgent application to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence, appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and establish a commission of inquiry. Ruling The ConCourt ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. 'The court has considered the application for exclusive jurisdiction and direct access. It has concluded that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and no case has been made out for direct access,' Justice Rammaka Steven Mathopo said. ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… 'And the following order is made. One, direct access is refused; two, courts are reserved; three, reasons for this order shall be given at a later date. Thank you,' Mathopo said. The ruling cleared the way for Ramaphosa to appoint Cachalia – an appointment made on Friday – and for the Madlanga Commission to proceed with its work. Zuma/MK party not happy Zuma and the MK party are not happy with the apex court's ruling, with the party's national spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela accusing the court of 'turning a blind eye' to the matter. 'To the shock of most South Africans who were under the impression that the rule of law still prevails in this country, the Constitutional Court has unfortunately chosen to turn a blind eye and take the easy way out by hiding behind technicalities, instead of addressing the real issues that have been presented by the MK party. 'The Constitutional Court has effectively sidestepped a clear constitutional crisis by deferring the matter to the High Court, where it may remain for years before potentially returning, well after Ramaphosa's term in office has concluded. In so doing, the apex court has abdicated its responsibility to hold the Executive accountable,' Ndhlela said. The Citizen has contacted the judiciary for comment. This will be included in the article once received. 'Brave efforts' Ndhlela claims the court's decision has disregarded the 'brave efforts of General Mkhwanazi' and many other law-abiding whistleblowers who are committed to fostering a safer, crime-free South Africa. 'The MK party will not be easily discouraged from demanding accountability. We are considering all available peaceful options to do so.' As the next step, the party, through its attorneys, demanded the resignation of Ramaphosa for 'repeatedly violating his oath of office', giving him until 10am on Friday to do so, or it would take action against him. 'Two police ministers' The party also demanded that Ramaphosa give reasons 'why South Africans must pay for two police ministers and fund an illegal Commission of Inquiry'. 'Ramaphosa is also required to respond to a list of 15 questions by Friday, 8th August 2025, concerning the current constitutional turmoil, which has been fuelled by his attempt to shield his ally, Mr. Senzo Mchunu, from a justified removal from Cabinet in exchange for protection related to the CR17 and Phala Phala criminal activities,' Ndhlela said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The letter said, irrespective of the answers Ramaphosa provides, his actions to place Mchunu on leave and appoint Cachalia remain 'illegal'. Chief justice Ndhlela said the MK party will be sending another letter to the Chief Justice [Mandisa Maya] requesting the urgent provision of the outstanding reasons for the order handed down last Thursday. 'Once all the necessary information and reasons have been received from Mr. Ramaphosa and the apex court, the way forward will be determined and communicated publicly. 'The MK party is adamant that it is in the country's best interest that Mr. Ramaphosa resigns with immediate effect. Any political party or member of Parliament who intends to vote against the MK party's forthcoming motion of no Confidence towards Ramaphosa should be prepared to face the justified anger of South Africans,' Ndhlela said. Ndhlela added that the MK party will continue to organise 'peaceful demonstrations in support of General Mkhwanazi and to strengthen the call for Ramaphosa's removal.' ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
TimesLIVE
15 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Hunger mounts, cemeteries grow in Sudan's besieged al-Fashir
Hundreds of thousands of people under siege in the Sudanese army's last holdout in the western Darfur region are running out of food and coming under constant artillery and drone barrages, while those who flee risk cholera and violent attacks. Al-Fashir, the capital of North Darfur state, is the biggest remaining frontline in the region between Sudan's army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), under fire at a pivotal point in a civil war well into its third year. "The RSF's artillery and drones are shelling al-Fashir morning and night," one resident told Reuters. Electricity was completely shut down, bakeries were closed and medical supplies scarce, he said. "The number of people dying has increased every day and the cemeteries are expanding." The war between the Sudanese army and the RSF erupted in April 2023 when the former allies clashed over plans to integrate their forces. The RSF made quick gains in central Sudan, including the capital Khartoum, but the army pushed them westward this year, leading to an intensification in fighting in al-Fashir. The city's fall would give the RSF control over nearly all of Darfur, a vast region bordering Libya, Chad, Central African Republic and South Sudan, and pave the way for what analysts said could be Sudan's de facto division.
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
Constitutional Court broadens interpretation of grazing rights under ESTA
The Constitutional Court ruled in favour of three brothers for their cattle to graze on the land belonging to a Trust. Image: File In deciding whether the right to graze cattle is afforded protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA), the Constitutional Court has afforded a broader interpretation to the Act to include not only the right to reside on land, but also includes associated uses such as grazing and cultivation. This followed an appeal before the apex court by three brothers against a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment which denied them the right to graze cattle on the land they are staying on. The SCA judgment followed an earlier Land Claims Court judgment, which ruled in favour of the Mereki brothers. They are occupiers in terms of ESTA and reside on a farm owned by a trust in the North West Province. The trust bought the farm in 2003 and the mother of the brothers previously occupied the farm and used it to graze cattle, but she had meanwhile died. According to the trust, the late Mrs Mereki derived consent to graze five heads of cattle due to her employment at the farm. According to the trust, the right was personal to Mrs Mereki and was not transferrable to her children upon her death. However, after her death, her sons continued to live on the farm and continued to use the land to graze their nine heads of cattle. They had never sought or obtained express consent to keep cattle on the farm. The Moladora Trust earlier turned to the Land Claims Court (LCC) where they initially lost their legal bid for the brothers to remove their cattle. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The LCC ruled that terminating grazing rights without engagement may constitute an eviction under ESTA. On appeal, the SCA held that the applicants never obtained explicit consent to graze livestock and that Mrs Mereki's right to do so did not automatically transfer to them upon her death. The brothers argued before the Constitutional Court that ESTA occupiers who had consent to reside on a farm acquired an automatic right to keep and graze cattle. Judge Owen Rodgers, who wrote the consenting ConCourt judgment, said this argument had far-reaching implications for the rights of both owners and ESTA occupiers, and the LCC, as a specialist forum, was best placed to determine it at first instance, he said. The Court considered the historical background of dispossession and noted that the Constitution had been enacted with the intention of securing tenure and guaranteeing rights associated with the use of land for cultivation and grazing. It found that section 39(1) of the Constitution required that tenure under ESTA be given a broad and generous interpretation, rather than a narrow one. In interpreting ESTA, the court highlighted several provisions that referred not only to residence but also to the use of land. Particularly instructive were the definitions of 'evict' and 'terminate', along with other provisions envisaging that an occupier might have consent to cultivate crops or graze animals. The court held that the legislature had inconsistently included 'use of land' when referring to the right to 'reside on land'.
