Photo/Illutration Akiteru Nogawa, Kagoshima prefectural police chief, testifies before a prefectural assembly committee on June 11. (Etsuo Tomita)

The Kagoshima prefectural police have raided a web media outlet that had been publishing reports criticizing its investigations.

The action raises serious issues concerning freedom of speech and expression. What are the prefectural police leadership’s responses to these issues?

The prefectural police department must promptly disclose the facts and explain in public how they considered the circumstances and decided to conduct the search.

Generally, investigations and searches of news media personnel that could threaten freedom of speech and expression and the people’s right to know should be carried out with due restraint.

In addition, these should be conducted only exceptionally after careful consideration of the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the legitimacy of the journalistic activities and reporting involved.

What is alarming about the Kagoshima police’s action is that the search was conducted against a journalistic website that pointed out issues within the prefectural police department, leading to the disclosure of their sources.

If searches on media personnel become the norm whenever information inconvenient to the authorities is released, and if sources are investigated, it would hinder the freedom of journalism and damage the public's right to know.

Detailed explanations from the prefectural police on these concerns are in order.

The Fukuoka-based website “Hunter,” which is focused on investigative journalism, had critically reported on an internal document of a division of the prefectural police called “keiji kikakuka dayori” (criminal investigation planning division newsletter). 

In this newsletter, the prefectural police urged prompt disposal of investigative documents. A copy of the document was published on the website.

The website also published a series of critical reports about the investigation of a former prefectural medical association employee. The reports were based on a copy of a prefectural police's internal document, which was a list of records of how criminal complaint and denunciation cases were dealt with.

In March, the prefectural police announced that the list had been leaked. On April 8, a police officer at the Soo police station (who was later dismissed for disciplinary reasons) was arrested on suspicion of violating confidentiality, including leaking a person's criminal history.

According to the legal representative of the male head of the news website, the search was conducted on the same day, with investigators questioning the website chief as a witness. His computer and mobile phone were seized.

The next day, when the computer was returned, the man agreed to the deletion of the list data but complained to the prefectural police because the criminal investigation planning section newsletter, which he did not agree to delete, was also erased.

He is protesting that it is "suppression of the press." During the investigation of the former police officer at the Soo station, it was also found that a former head of the prefectural police’s community safety department had leaked information. It appears that the search on the website led to the discovery.

The former department head was arrested for providing internal information to a journalist who posted articles on the site.

The former head's lawyer argues that his actions were "akin to internal whistleblowing." Concerns that protecting whistleblowers could be compromised were also raised during a prefectural assembly session in which questions were asked about the case.

How will the prefectural police respond to these suspicions and criticisms? This is a matter that has a strong bearing on the police's integrity and credibility.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 20