The criminal investigation into a massive vote-buying scandal that forced Katsuyuki Kawai to resign as justice minister raises serious questions that need answering. The special investigative unit of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office stands accused of having used questionable tactics in its probe.

A former Hiroshima municipal assembly member indicted for violating the Public Offices Election Law by accepting a bribe from Kawai prior to the Upper House election in 2019 claims a prosecutor suggested he would not be prosecuted if he agreed to testify that the money received from Kawai was a bribe.

Kawai was found guilty two years ago of distributing bribes in exchange for votes for his wife, Anri, when she ran in the Upper House poll. Anri Kawai was also convicted.

The husband was handed a prison sentence for distributing around 29 million yen ($205,020) to a total of 100 individuals in Hiroshima Prefecture, including local assembly members and local government heads, to buy votes to ensure his wife’s victory in the election. The scandal rocked the local political community.

Prosecutors filed a summary indictment against the former municipal assembly member for receiving 300,000 yen in cash from Kawai. He has requested a formal court trial, which is set to start on July 27. His lawyer held a news conference July 21 in which he criticized the investigation by disclosing details of alleged underhand tactics by prosecutors.

The lawyer asserted that prosecutors took advantage of his client’s desire to remain an assembly member as a guilty ruling, once finalized, would force him to relinquish his seat. While questioning the man, who denied wrongdoing, the prosecutor said he hoped he would keep his job as an assembly member.

The assembly member signed a document in which he admitted to receiving a bribe but later explained to prosecutors that he was in such a rush when he received the money that he did not consider it a bribe. Prosecutors told him that if he admitted fully to the allegations he might not even be indicted or let off with a lesser charge. That led to the document remaining unrevised. The lawyer said he has an audio recording of the voluntary questioning of his client in the presence of a member of the unit.

Since acts of buying votes are usually committed behind closed doors, investigators tend to rely on testimonies of suspects when trying to ascertain how money or other gifts were handed out and for what purpose. When investigators try to extract a statement from a suspect to serve their case by handing out favors, facts can be manipulated. Such behavior is unacceptable.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a confession made after a promise not to indict the individual is inadmissible as evidence. The ruling questioned whether such “confessions” were given voluntarily.

Precisely what the prosecutor said to the former local assembly member is not known. If the prosecutor made remarks that could be construed as a promise not to indict the individual, then the behavior was very inappropriate.

There are reasons to harbor doubts about the way prosecutors handled the case. Despite significant differences concerning the amounts of money handed to the 100 individuals and how they used the cash, Tokyo prosecutors initially decided not to indict any of them.

However, a prosecution inquest panel took exception to the decision and concluded that 35 of the 100 individuals in Hiroshima Prefecture should be indicted. Prosecutors then filed full-fledged or summary indictments against 34 of the individuals. This provoked speculation that prosecutors struck “deals” with the local politicians.

Other individuals who are facing court proceedings in the case also claim prosecutors tried to make a deal with them by indicating they would not be indicted if they confessed to their guilt. Clearly, questionable investigation tactics were widely used.

The Supreme Public Prosecutors Office must mount an inquiry into the investigations of all the people involved, including those who are not on trial, and publish the results.

If prosecutors questioned the suspects with the sole purpose of prosecuting the former justice minister, their ethical standards must be called into serious question. All the relevant facts should be clarified.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 25