It would be outrageous if prosecutors demanded evidence relevant to their legal proceeding be destroyed. But a former government official, who destroyed evidence relevant to a criminal case, claims that he did so when he was told by an official of the presidential office that prosecutors demanded it be removed before a warrant for search and seizure was served.

Of course, the prosecutors’ office denies the accusations with vehemence. A senior prosecutor is quoted as saying, “We did everything we could in search for evidence. It is out of the question that we demanded its destruction.”

Nonetheless, there is room for suspicion, given that the prosecutors’ office obtained no worthwhile evidence because it had already been destroyed. Moreover, it served the warrant belatedly ― four days after it launched an investigation into the case. When it was wrapped up, the then prosecutor-general acknowledged that it was a failed investigation.

The case dates back to mid-2010 when it was disclosed that the prime minister’s office engaged in the illegal surveillance of a civilian, a company chief executive officer, who had posted a video clip in his blog, lampooning President Lee Myung-bak. The businessman was pressured by government officials to resign from his CEO post.

Wrapping up its investigation, the prosecutors’ office indicted seven officials from the prime minister’s office, including the one who destroyed the evidence, but none from the presidential office despite a memo it had obtained, on which “BH instruction” was written, with BH undoubtedly denoting the Blue House. It said it obtained no statement by any of the suspects that the presidential office ordered the surveillance.

But the man whom lower courts sentenced to prison for destroying a computer hard disk and other items of evidence and had the execution of the sentence suspended is now saying that he did so at the instruction of a junior presidential aide. He quotes the aide as saying that the destruction of evidence would pose no problem because a senior presidential secretary was coordinating the prosecutors’ office on the case. He is awaiting a final ruling.

Now the prosecutors’ office will have to reopen the case, by questioning the then junior presidential aide, given that Prime Minister Kim Hwang-sik and the then justice minister promised in late 2010 to launch a new investigation if new facts were found. Otherwise, the National Assembly may appoint an independent counsel for such a mission at the request of the main opposition party.