President Lee Myung-bak must have felt humiliated when he found he had no other choice than to select one of the two lawyers recommended by the opposition Democratic United Party as the independent counsel on Friday. His demand for new recommendations had been rejected out of hand.

He made a fatal mistake when, citing an alleged procedural mistake as the reason, he refused on Wednesday to make a choice between the two as required by law. Instead, he demanded that the opposition party conduct proper consultations with the ruling Saenuri Party and make new recommendations.

The ruling party also made a serious mistake when it supported the president’s decision. Its floor leader said, “We have an accord that requires the ruling and opposition parties to have consultations (on the opposition’s recommendations). Because it did not have proper consultations with us, the Democratic United Party committed a grave procedural violation of the agreement.” He claimed this breach rendered the recommendations null and void.

But Lee was launching an unwinnable fight when he called on the opposition to retract its recommendations and make new ones. First of all, he had no firm legal foundation on which to anchor his demand.

Under a law that took effect last month, Lee had to select one of the two lawyers as the independent counsel empowered to look into a scandal involving him, his son and one of his former security officers. From a legal point of view, it was none of his business what kind of consultations the two parties had with regard to the opposition’s recommendations. He was required to act as stipulated by law ― nothing more, nothing less.

The liberal opposition party acknowledged it had a “verbal accord” on consultations with the conservative ruling party and said it kept its end of the bargain when it proposed a lawyer as a potential nominee and the ruling party endorsed him. But the problem, it said, was that the lawyer declined its offer to recommend him as a nominee.

Presumably, it was not the procedural matter but the backgrounds of the nominees that caused the president to balk. One of them was affiliated with Minbyun, or the Lawyers for a Democratic Society, and the other once belonged to a court fraternity of judges doing research on Korean law. The president apparently suspected the two progressive organizations were biased against him.

Lee was apparently worried about the possibility of a progressive lawyer looking into his case when he seriously considered vetoing the bill on the appointment of an independent counsel. He signed it into law on the last day he could send it back to the National Assembly for another round of deliberation and a new vote on it.

He chose not to veto the bill, probably on a promise that the opposition party would come up with ideologically neutral nominees. His senior secretary for political affairs appeared to have brokered such a bargain with the ruling party. But the ruling party certainly failed to prevail in consultations with the opposition.

The scandal, which is subject to an independent counsel’s investigation, dates back to May last year when Lee bought plots of land for his retirement home in the name of his son together with his security service, which had intended to construct a building for its detail in the compound. The purchase allegedly breached the law banning the use of a proxy’s name in property contracts and accrued an illicit profit for him. The prosecution, which looked into the case, cleared the accused of allegations of all criminal accusations.

When he was considering vetoing the bill on the appointment of an opposition-recommended independent counsel, he claimed he, his son and the security officer were innocent. But he said he doubted an opposition-recommended counsel would conduct a fair and politically neutral investigation.

If they are innocent as he claims, Lee did not have to worry too much about an investigation by an opposition-recommended independent counsel. It was not the independent counsel but the court that would have to determine whether or not the accused were guilty.

The opposition could have made a tactical retreat, held consultations with the ruling party again but decided to hold on to its original recommendations. No such charade was needed when Lee swallowed his pride and appointed one of the two lawyers as the independent counsel on Friday.