South Korean parliamentary lawyers have made their final arguments in President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment trial, seeking his removal over his brief imposition of martial law, during which they compared him to a dictator.

During his closing statement to the Constitutional Court, Yoon defended his actions, asserting that they were lawful and necessary to safeguard the country. He faces the possibility of being ousted from office before completing his five-year term if the court upholds the impeachment, which claims that his declaration of martial law on December 3 was unconstitutional and lacked proper justification.

Lee Kwang-beom, one of the parliamentary lawyers, drew comparisons between Yoon and past South Korean authoritarian leaders such as Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Lee argued that Yoon’s desire to control the nation was akin to dictatorship, suggesting that the president intended to alter the constitution to serve his interests and undermine democratic governance. “The moment he declared martial law, he effectively abandoned his role as the president of our democratic republic,” Lee asserted.

Another lawyer criticized Yoon’s unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, which they argued had severely damaged the credibility of South Korea’s electoral system.

In his own remarks, Yoon rejected any comparisons between his actions and those of previous authoritarian figures. He stated that his decision to declare martial law was meant to rally the public against what he viewed as “anti-state forces,” pro-North Korea sympathizers, and political gridlock within the opposition. Yoon emphasized that the purpose of the martial law decree was to inform the public of the national crisis, not to impose full military rule. He also denied acting out of self-interest, claiming that stepping down and waiting out the remainder of his term would have been easier.

Yoon argued that the six-hour martial law declaration was not a failure but rather ended sooner than intended, and he dismissed allegations that he ordered military intervention in parliament as irrelevant since “nothing actually happened” and no one was harmed.

In response, parliament contended that Yoon was unfit to determine what constituted a national emergency requiring such an extreme measure. They also expressed concerns that he might attempt to impose martial law again if reinstated.

Yoon’s declaration of martial law, which temporarily suspended political and parliamentary activities, led to a constitutional crisis, including the impeachment of the prime minister, who became acting president, while the finance minister is currently leading the country.

Yoon is also facing a separate criminal trial, being held in the Seoul Detention Centre on charges related to his involvement in an insurrection. As a former prosecutor, he is the first sitting South Korean president to undergo a criminal trial.

The Constitutional Court has yet to announce when it will deliver its ruling, though it has up to six months from December 14, when the case was filed. If Yoon is removed from office, a new presidential election must take place within 60 days.

Former President Park Geun-hye was removed in 2017 following her impeachment trial, with the Constitutional Court delivering its verdict just 11 days after the final arguments.