Judge who criticized chief justice joins chorus calling ruling party's judicial moves 'clear violation of independence'

Judges rally behind 'Animal Farm' post comparing judicial overhaul to Orwell's dystopia

Cheongju court president warns judiciary could be 'dissolved like prosecutors'

Senior judge says forcing chief justice out would be 'abuse of power'

Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae listens to President Lee Jae Myung's budget policy address for fiscal year 2027 at the National Assembly plenary chamber in Yeouido, Seoul, on Monday. [Yonhap]

An unusually large wave of judges has rallied behind a colleague's post comparing recent judicial reform efforts to George Orwell's "Animal Farm," with more than 20 fellow judges leaving comments of support on the court's internal network. Even a judge who had previously criticized Chief Justice Jo Hee-dae has now turned on the ruling camp, calling its moves against the judiciary "a clear violation of judicial independence" and urging it to stop.

According to legal sources Monday, a post titled "On the Novel Animal Farm," written by Judge Seong Chan-yong of the Incheon District Court's Bucheon Branch and published on the court's internal network, known as CourtNet, on Friday, drew more than 20 comments expressing agreement and solidarity. Respondents included not only rank-and-file judges but also senior judges at district courts, a district court president and a senior judge at a high court.

In the post, Judge Seong likened recent judicial overhaul measures — including the abolition of the Prosecution Service and the expansion of the Supreme Court bench — to the world of "Animal Farm," writing that the judiciary must "stand up boldly against unjust attacks."

Cheongju District Court President Jo Mi-yeon wrote in a comment that there was no guarantee the judiciary would not be "dissolved into thin air, just like the prosecutors" if it stayed silent, and said "now is the time to speak up."

Jo also criticized those who had "day after day denounced the judiciary and threatened impeachment," saying they were now pushing for a parliamentary investigation after rulings failed to go their way.

"Does this reflect a belief that individual judges are subordinates who follow the chief justice's instructions?" Jo wrote. "That is an insult to every judge, including myself."

Seoul Northern District Court President Yun Sang-do and Daegu Family Court President Im Hae-ji also left comments expressing agreement.

Judge Guk Yang-geun of the Gwangju District Court's Suncheon Branch wrote that simply looking at when and how suddenly the agenda items bringing fundamental changes to the judicial system had appeared — and how quickly they were legislated, with no meaningful deliberation — made it clear they were "not progressive changes made for all citizens."

Citing the unprecedented parliamentary investigation targeting the chief justice, Judge Guk asked: "Has political power ever so openly disregarded the separation of powers and intimidated the head of the judiciary in constitutional history?" He added that if even the chief justice could be "hacked apart" simply for being disliked, it was hard to see how judges could rule with conviction rather than with one eye on political power.

"I find the reality of judicial independence and the rule of law crumbling utterly devastating and lamentable," Judge Guk wrote, adding that he fully agreed with Judge Seong's views.

Changwon District Court's Miryang Branch President Han Yun-ok posted a reply titled "The Value of Separation of Powers and Article 1 of the Judicial Ethics Code," emphasizing the principles of the separation of powers and the protection of judicial independence.

Han wrote that the moment judicial independence was not respected due to the political interests of those in power — and instead came to be encroached upon and threatened — democracy would cease to belong to citizens and would become a tool of governance wielded by a political force that had seized control of the state's judicial power.

Han added that South Korea had already experienced that historical pain, and that the reflection it prompted was preserved in the country's Judicial Ethics Code, quoting Article 1: "A judge shall protect the independence of judicial power from all external influences."

Senior Judge Jeong Uk-do of Seoul Northern District Court posted a message Monday addressed "To members of the ruling camp," criticizing the ruling party's push for a parliamentary investigation and impeachment of Chief Justice Jo. Jeong had earlier spoken out against Jo's handling of the martial law crisis, calling for the judiciary to reflect on its conduct.

Even so, Jeong turned his criticism on the ruling camp, writing that it appeared determined to fill every new Supreme Court seat with someone "exactly to its liking." He questioned whether the party was trying to transform the president's passive power to approve or reject nominations into an active power to compel the chief justice to recommend specific individuals.

"Is it not the case that the impeachment push and this parliamentary investigation began by seizing on the chief justice's refusal as a pretext to remove him, driven by accumulated grievances?" Jeong wrote.

Jeong said it would have been better for everyone had Chief Justice Jo resigned, but argued that as long as Jo had chosen to remain in his post, forcing him out was both impossible and an abuse of power.

Jeong went on to say that using the no-longer-realistic prospect of the insurrection forces returning to power as justification for abusing constitutional authority was no different from the insurrection ringleader who declared martial law using a nonexistent anti-state threat as a pretext.

"Setting all that aside, using dissatisfaction with individual rulings — or attempts to influence them — as the real reason to pressure the judiciary is a clear violation of judicial independence," Jeong wrote. "As a judge, I cannot overlook this. Please come to your senses and stop."

Jeong added that as someone who had called on the judiciary to declare martial law unconstitutional and had personally asked the chief justice to resign over problems with certain rulings, he was delivering the same message as Judge Seong directly: "What cannot be done cannot be done."

notstrong@heraldcorp.com