hankyoreh

Seoul Northern District Court Judge Seo Gi-ho, who sparked controversy by lampooning President Lee Myung-bak on Facebook, will not be reappointed. The Supreme Court said the decision to designate Seo “unfit for rehiring” was simply due to the results of his performance evaluation, not because of his comments on Facebook. It’s impossible to know the findings of Seo’s performance evaluation because those results are officially sealed. There is much to be doubtful about, though.
Firstly, only three judges have not been reappointed after a performance evaluation since the legal officer reappointing system was introduced in 1988. According to this decision then, Seo must be the kind of unqualified judge who appears once or twice every 20 years. Given that in 10 years of life as a legal officer, with the exception of the Facebook stir, he has never invited controversy, it’s difficult to accept the ruling without question.
Secondly, there’s also the issue of whether there might be a more objective index that could link performance evaluation results with an “unable to carry out a judge’s duties” ruling. Moreover, the results of the performance evaluation are themselves not completely objective or transparent. To make a decision not to rehire someone---something that amounts to firing---by taking an imprecise yardstick to work performance evaluation results that are by their nature imperfect is problematic.
Thirdly, it appears that the opportunity being given to Seo to explain himself is nothing more than a formality. Calling him in without the reasons for the ruling against him spelled out is like asking a defendant to prove his innocence.
Because of all these suspicions, talk is being raised that the decision to drop Seo was retaliatory. The same observation was made by some who said Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Seung-tae’s decision to stress “the dignity and temperament of court officers” in the court’s New Year meeting was aimed at judges like Seo who made peppery statements. Moreover, Seo had embarrassed the judiciary by giving a media interview in which he said the Korean film Broken Arrow was well made, but made him uncomfortable. One cannot help but suspect that Seo was excluded from rehiring by the court leadership for making “smart remarks about the bosses.”
The Supreme Court must address mistrust regarding the issue of rehiring Seo by issuing a convincing explanation about these suspicions. The Supreme Court’s uncovering of unqualified judges through rehiring screenings is a good thing, but the standard must be firm and fair. One mustn’t let a system grow useless, but it’s problematic to abuse it, too. We worry that dropping Seo might amplify the mistrust in the judiciary set off by the film Broken Arrow.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]