Photo/Illutration Hyogo Governor Motohiko Saito is questioned by the Article 100 Committee, a special investigation committee set up by the Hyogo prefectural assembly, in Kobe on Aug. 30. (pool)

Disciplinary action was taken against a former Hyogo prefectural employee who accused Governor Motohiko Saito of power harassment and corruption, even though some officials opposed it, citing the legal imperative of protecting whistleblowers.

There are persistent suspicions that Saito may have influenced the decision.

In March, the former head of the prefectural government’s branch office in charge of the western Nishi-Harima region sent a document criticizing Saito and others for abusive and corrupt acts to some media outlets and prefectural assembly members.

He died in an apparent suicide in July after being investigated and disciplined in May by the local government.

The allegations represent a case with potentially serious implications that could fundamentally undermine the whistleblower protection system, which prohibits the disadvantageous treatment of whistleblowers.

The Hyogo prefectural assembly's special investigative committee (the so-called Article 100 Committee), set up to investigate the allegations, needs to swiftly clarify the facts.

The allegations made by the man in the document cover seven areas, including power harassment and the acceptance of gifts. Saito was questioned for the first time by the committee on Aug. 30.

Issues such as reprimanding staff in various situations and instructions via late-night chats were discussed. It is necessary to carefully determine whether these constitute power harassment, taking into account expert opinions.

Key issues that should not be left out during the process are those that concern the whistleblower protection system.

In late March, Saito himself obtained the complaint document and ordered an investigation.

Even after the man initiated official procedures at the whistleblower office within the prefectural government in early April, the investigation continued, resulting in a decision in early May to suspend the employee for three months.

The prefecture characterized the complaint document as "slanderous against the governor and some senior officials" and said it had made the decision based on its evaluations of the document and other inappropriate actions committed by the employee.

At the committee’s closed-door session on Aug. 23, a prefectural official testified, stating that they advised their superior that no disciplinary action should be taken until a decision was made by the whistleblower office.

The draft plan for the disciplinary action was decided by a disciplinary committee consisting of a dozen or so prefectural employees, where three members questioned whether it was appropriate to proceed with the action before the disciplinary panel’s decision, according to the official’s testimony.

Prior to the disciplinary committee, Saito directed that the plan should be checked by a lawyer who confirmed that there were no legal issues, and the disciplinary action was decided.

At the investigative committee session on Aug. 30, Saito repeated his previous claims that "the necessary procedures were properly conducted" and that "I still believe it was appropriate."

However, suspicions that the governor's proactive stance from the beginning influenced the investigation and decision-making have not been dispelled.

In a news conference shortly after starting the investigation of the complaint document, the governor criticized the man for creating such a document, saying he was "unfit to work as a public servant.”

Noting that the person himself had admitted to creating and distributing the document to a certain number of people, the governor said, “I think disciplinary action will be taken."

An exhaustive investigation needs to be conducted to clarify how the governor viewed this case’s implications for the whistleblowing system and whether he was in any way involved in the decision-making process.

The special committee session to be held this weekend will deliberate on issues related to the whistleblower protection system. The capability of the prefectural assembly to fully uncover the truth is being tested.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 1

Related News