Presidential Office Defends Investigation Chief’s Cabinet Attendance

South Korea’s presidential office on Thursday rejected concerns that the head of the country’s new Serious Crime Investigation Agency could compromise the agency’s neutrality by attending Cabinet meetings.

The response followed criticism over agency chief Kim Ji-yong’s attendance at Tuesday’s meeting, his first appearance at a Cabinet session since taking office. The controversy centers on a longstanding practice under which the heads of investigative organizations have generally stayed away from Cabinet meetings, partly to preserve the appearance and reality of operational independence.

President Lee Jae Myung addressed the issue in a social media post Wednesday, saying the chiefs of government institutions under his command could attend Cabinet meetings. Critics in the media argued that participation by the head of an investigative agency could blur the boundary between government policy coordination and decisions that should remain insulated from political influence.

Seong Ghi-hong, Lee’s senior secretary for the press, said the administration remained committed to fairness, political neutrality in investigations and independence in indictment decisions. He said those principles would not change because an agency chief took part in Cabinet discussions.

The presidential office also drew a line around the subject matter of the meetings. Seong said individual investigations and instructions concerning indictments would not be discussed at Cabinet sessions. He described the meetings instead as a venue where leaders of government bodies can share the administration’s governing philosophy and review current issues.

The dispute highlights an early institutional question for the Serious Crime Investigation Agency: how closely its leadership should coordinate with the executive branch while maintaining public confidence that sensitive investigations are handled without political direction. The agency’s status as a newly created body has placed particular attention on the customs and safeguards that will shape its operations.

For the Lee administration, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that attendance at a policy meeting does not translate into influence over specific cases. The presidential office’s assurances establish its stated boundary, but scrutiny is likely to continue over how that separation works in practice and whether future Cabinet agendas remain clear of case-level investigative matters.

The government’s position is that participation serves administrative coordination rather than political control. The criticism, however, reflects broader concern about whether formal authority and informal access could affect perceptions of independence even when no direct instructions are given.