In early November 2025, South Korea witnessed a significant escalation in its ongoing constitutional and political crisis. The arrests of two senior figures in the former administration mark a serious move by investigators into the short-lived martial law declaration of December 2024. The article reports that a former prime minister, Hwang Kyo‑ahn, and a former head of the national intelligence agency, Cho Tae‑yong, were taken into custody in relation to the failed attempt by former President Yoon Suk‑yeol to impose emergency rule. The arrests come as prosecutors continue to widen their investigation into how the executive branch, intelligence services and military worked (or attempted to work) together in a move that many critics regard as an assault on democratic governance.

The article begins by reporting that “a former South Korean prime minister and the country’s one-time spy chief have been arrested in connection with the short-lived imposition of martial law by [Yoon] in December 2024.” Hwang was detained on the charge of “inciting an insurrection.” According to local reports, after the declaration of martial law, Hwang posted on Facebook calling “for the arrest of the country’s National Assembly speaker and for the eradication of those involved in alleged electoral fraud.” Meanwhile, Cho was arrested on several alleged violations of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) Act, including dereliction of duty and failing to report to the legislature a plan that had significant national-security implications. The article notes that under the NIS Act, the director is required “to report to the National Assembly, as well as to the president, if a situation that has a significant impact on national security arises.” The prosecution alleges that Cho was aware of the plan to impose martial law yet failed to provide required reports.

The context of these arrests lies in the dramatic events of 3 December 2024, when President Yoon announced a nationwide declaration of martial law and deployed military and police forces to the national parliament building in Seoul to prevent lawmakers from acting against his order. The move lasted only a few hours, as lawmakers assembled and voted to nullify the declaration. But the episode triggered what many analysts describe as the worst constitutional crisis since South Korea’s democratic transition. In the aftermath, Yoon was impeached and removed from office in April 2025, and he has been indicted on multiple charges including abuse of power and, according to one source, charges of aiding the enemy by provoking North Korea. (While not detailed at length in the article you asked me to summarise, these broader investigations set the backdrop for the arrests of Hwang and Cho.)

In examining the specific allegations, Hwang’s arrest hinges on his public support for the martial law declaration and his calls for arrests of opposition figures. The article reports that Hwang “was detained … on charges of inciting an insurrection.” For Cho, prosecutors allege a more technical—though no less serious—breach of his legal duties: that he understood the illegality of the plan, yet failed to report it, and also may have destroyed or falsified documents and given false testimony. The article cites that prosecutors said Cho “understood its illegality” but neglected to report the plot. At the hearing, Cho denied all charges.

Beyond these individual cases, the article emphasises the broader institutional and security implications. The use of martial law, the involvement of the intelligence agency, and the efforts to deploy armed forces to parliament all raise fundamental questions about the checks and balances of democratic governance, civil-military relations, and oversight of security services. The arrests reflect a willingness by the special prosecution to hold senior officials accountable for misuse of power and possible constitutional violations. The article states that the investigation continues to widen beyond the president and the two arrested men.

Politically, this marks a moment of reckoning for South Korea. The failed martial law bid by President Yoon has already cost him his office, and the focus now is shifting to his key associates and the mechanisms by which the crisis was triggered. The fact that the former prime minister and intelligence chief are being arrested signals that the probe seeks to trace the chain of responsibility and hold multiple actors to account. For many observers, this is a test of South Korea’s institutional strength: whether its democratic systems can respond effectively when senior officials attempt extraordinary measures outside the normal constitutional framework.

In conclusion, the arrests of Hwang Kyo-ahn and Cho Tae-yong represent a deepening of the legal and political response to the December 2024 martial law declaration. The controversy surrounding that declaration—deployment of troops to parliament, the rapid lifting of martial law, the impeachment of the president—has now moved into the realm of criminal investigation and prosecution. The article highlights how the NIS Act and constitutional norms are being invoked as grounds for charges, notably around dereliction of duty, false testimony and incitement. Ultimately, the case raises crucial questions about executive power, intelligence oversight and the rule of law in a democratic South Korea.