South Korea will hold a presidential election on June 3, following the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol over his attempt to impose martial law.
Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is currently serving as acting president, announced the date on Tuesday after the Constitutional Court upheld Yoon’s impeachment, which legally mandates a new election within 60 days.
Yoon’s removal came after he sought to deploy armed forces to Parliament in December, a move the court ruled as politically motivated military intervention. Han declared the election day a temporary public holiday to facilitate full voter participation. The official campaign period will run from May 12 to June 2, and the new president will be inaugurated immediately after the election.
Recent polls show opposition leader Lee Jae-myung as the frontrunner with 34% support, ahead of other contenders. Lee, who narrowly lost to Yoon in the 2022 race, is expected to run again after stepping down as the Democratic Party leader. Despite ongoing legal challenges, Lee remains the top choice for many voters.
Yoon’s impeachment marks the second time a South Korean president has been removed by the Constitutional Court, following Park Geun-hye’s ousting in 2017. Since Yoon’s suspension, the country has faced several crises, including disasters and rising trade tensions with the U.S.
Experts predict South Koreans will vote for stability and leadership in the upcoming election, with many looking to restore confidence in their democracy.
![UK Supreme Court Declares Transgender Women Not Legally 'Woman' Under Equality Act The United Kingdom Supreme Court has declared that transgender women, even those with Gender Recognition Certificates, do not fall under the legal definition of "woman" as set out in the landmark Equality Act 2010. The judgment, delivered by five justices on Wednesday could upend years of hard-fought progress by the trans rights movement and is already fuelling calls for a redraft of the Equality Act. The case, a flashpoint in an increasingly polarised gender rights war, was triggered by a challenge from gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS). Backed in part by author J.K. Rowling and the advocacy group Sex Matters, FWS argued that the term "woman" in the Equality Act must be understood biologically, and not through self-identification or legal paperwork. The Scottish government, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with trans rights advocates, defended its stance. Its lawyers leaned heavily on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which states that individuals issued a GRC have legally changed their sex “for all purposes.” That, they argued, should include legal protections reserved for women. The Supreme Court’s central concern in its ruling was that treating trans women as women would create insurmountable “practical problems”. “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act] 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate,” the court ruled. The judges noted that protections for pregnant women would collapse unless “man” and “woman” had a biological meaning. They also found that considering trans women with gender recognition certificates as having a female “certificated sex” created further issues. Lord Hodge said that “interpreting sex as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the [Equality Act 2010] – and thus the protected characteristic of sex – in an incoherent way.” In its reasons, the Supreme Court found that the notion of “certificated sex” would also “weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation,” for example by “interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations”. The justices also found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces”. Reacting, the UK Government hailed the “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling. “We have always supported the protection of single sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesman said. “This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs. “Single sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.”](https://newsbulletin.com.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/1744804310668-300x169.jpg)
