The apparent suicide of an official at the Hyogo prefectural government who accused the governor of corruption and harassment poses a test of whether the prefectural assembly can conduct a fair and convincing investigation and reveal the truth about the charges.

The accusations against Governor Motohiko Saito and others were leveled by the former head of the prefectural government’s branch office in charge of the western Nishi-Harima region. In mid-March, the official distributed a document to prefectural assembly members and media organizations outlining his accusations against the governor.

Many issues and questions need to be resolved; for starters, whether they are true. One focus is the propriety of the prefecture’s decision to suspend the man after he took steps based on the prefecture’s whistleblower protection system. The prefectural assembly, which in June decided to establish a special investigation committee based on the Local Autonomy Law, bears the responsibility to clarify the truth.

The document revolves around seven issues, notably that the governor received various items from companies and repeatedly resorted to “power harassment” by verbally abusing local administration officials.

Saito denied the charges laid out in the document and expressed regret about how his interactions with staff had been perceived.

The special investigative committee (so-called Article 100 Committee) set up by the prefectural assembly had scheduled a session to question the man as a witness in mid-July. The panel plans to continue the inquiry by continuing to talk to prefectural employees. It has requested that those involved attend questioning sessions.

The committee must assess the document’s content and verify whether the prefecture’s response to the man was appropriate.

At the end of March, the prefecture started weighing disciplinary action against the whistleblower after he admitted to distributing the document.

Saito tore into his character at news conference, stating that creating and distributing a document containing “a bunch of lies” during work hours disqualified him as a public servant. The governor then announced his intention to take disciplinary action against the man.

In an April news conference, Saito stated that the document was not accepted under the prefecture’s whistleblowing system for public interest and, therefore, does not constitute a whistleblowing act.

Afterward, the man went through the official whistleblowing procedure with the prefecture, but the local government’s personnel affairs department continued the probe. In May, the department suspended him for three months, stating that the core part of the document was not factual. It cited other reasons, too.

The whistleblower protection law defines whistleblowing as an employee’s act of reporting what they believe is wrongdoing within their organization, not for wrongful purposes, to organizational reporting portals, competent administrative authorities, or the media. The law prohibits unfair treatment of the whistleblower, such as demotion.

The whole process leading to the former official’s death is riddled with questions. Was the man's action qualified as whistleblowing from the beginning? Did the personnel affairs department act appropriately when it considered and implemented disciplinary action against the former official after he followed official whistleblowing procedures?

Saito, who was seconded to Osaka Prefecture as a bureaucrat from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, ran for the governor of Hyogo three years ago.

The Liberal Democratic Party’s support was divided between Saito and the former deputy governor, while Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) endorsed Saito, leading to his election.

Given this background, some say the situation turned into a “political struggle.” Nevertheless, the prefectural assembly must conduct a fair inquiry into the matter.

As representatives directly elected by the people, along with the governor, the assembly is facing a key test of whether it can properly perform its role for dealing with this legitimacy challenge.

--The Asahi Shimbun, July 12