Photo/Illutration Hiromu Kurokawa, former chief of the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, on Jan. 21, 2019 (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

OSAKA--The district court here ruled to allow the disclosure of records of discussions pertaining to an unprecedented Cabinet decision in 2020 to extend the retirement age of a high-ranking prosecutor known for his close ties to the Abe administration.

The June 27 ruling by the Osaka District Court relates to Hiromu Kurokawa, who headed the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office and was supposed to have retired on Feb. 7, 2020, the day before his 63rd birthday.

In his ruling, Judge Atsushi Tokuchi said “the change in interpretation of the law regarding the extension of the retirement age must be considered to have been for Kurokawa’s benefit.”

The lawsuit was filed by Hiroshi Kamiwaki, a professor of constitutional law at Kobe Gakuin University.

The retirement age for public prosecutors was set at 63 under the Public Prosecutor’s Office Law. But in January 2020, just before Kurokawa’s 63rd birthday, the Abe administration applied a provision of the law allowing for the first time an extension of the retirement age for a public prosecutor.

This provision when it was first drawn up was not deemed “to apply to prosecutors,” who are required to be independent. However, the central government justified the application somewhat flippantly, simply by saying it “has changed the interpretation of the provision,” a tactic that characterized Abe’s dealings when he was determined to have his own way.

Kamiwaki requested the disclosure of documents covering the relevant discussions by Abe administration officials on Kurokawa and keeping him on as a senior prosecutor.

Justice Ministry did not disclose most of the records on grounds “there were no pertinent documents.”

The central government has stated during the court proceedings that documents showing the process of the reinterpretation exist, but not ones pertaining to Kurokawa.

In its decision, the court concluded that discussion on the government’s reinterpretation began at the end of 2019, when Kurokawa’s retirement was looming, and that the government completed the process in just one month.

The court also found that the Cabinet’s approval was reached seven days ahead of Kurokawa’s retirement day, and that the government had not informed public prosecutors’ offices around the country of the change, even though it said, “the extension is for the benefit of prosecutors in general.”

Therefore, the court reasoned the change was “hastily made in time for Kurokawa’s retirement,” and decided that some of the documents are subject to disclosure requests.

A Justice Ministry representative said after the ruling, “We will examine the details of the ruling and take appropriate action.”

The Cabinet’s decision to extend Kurokawa’s retirement age without revising the law came under a barrage of criticism at the time. It was viewed as a blatant attempt to make Kurokawa, despite his close ties with the Abe administration, the public prosecutor-general, the top post among public prosecutors. 

The move was also heavily criticized because it “allows political intervention in the judiciary.”

Later, a proposal was made to revise the law to institutionalize the retirement age extension. But the bill was ultimately scrapped.

Even though his retirement age was extended, Kurokawa resigned in May 2020 following reports of gambling on mah-jongg during a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic when the public was discouraged from any activities involving other people.

In March 2021, the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office filed a summary indictment against Kurokawa on charges of gambling.

Kamiwaki held a news conference in Osaka after the ruling and said the main purpose of the lawsuit was “to show” the real intention behind Kurokawa’s retirement age extension.

“I consider it a victory, close to 100 percent,” he said about the ruling. “This is a landmark decision that recognizes the government did something arbitrarily and unforgivably by changing the interpretation of the law to suit a particular person.”

(This article was written by Issei Yamamoto and Tetsuaki Otaki.)

Related News