Hyogo Prefecture’s Article 100 Committee: Key Issue Is How Whistleblowing Was Handled

Editorial

16:13 JST, November 24, 2024

Even if a public mandate has been received through reelection, that does not mean that the issue related to whistleblowing has been resolved. It is important to clarify the facts via a thorough investigation and use the findings to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

The so-called Article 100 committee — a panel that the Hyogo prefectural assembly set up based on Article 100 of the Local Government Law to investigate allegations of workplace bullying and other matters involving Hyogo Gov. Motohiko Saito — will resume its questioning of Saito that was suspended due to the gubernatorial race in which he sought reelection. The crux of the issue is the initial response by the governor and other relevant people to the whistleblowing.

In March, a then senior official of the prefectural government sent a document to the media and other organizations describing the allegations against Saito. After that, the official also reported the same information to the section of the prefectural government that deals with allegations from whistleblowers.

In response, Saito and others on the prefectural side said the document was dubious and identified the whistleblower. They then took disciplinary action against him. The man was found dead in July, and is believed to have committed suicide.

Whistleblowing is meant to uncover and correct misconduct in an organization, and the Whistleblower Protection Law prohibits the identification of whistleblowers and disadvantageous treatment of them. The response made by Saito and others is suspected to have gone against the purpose of the law.

Saito has claimed that there was “no problem” with the prefectural government’s response.

However, the governor — who is the subject of the accusation — unilaterally determined that the allegations were not true and punished the whistleblower after finding out who he was. These actions cannot be viewed as normal.

If such actions are allowed, no one will be able to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. On top of that, Saito is the highest authority in the prefectural government.

Investigations into the allegations are being carried out separately by the Article 100 committee, the prefectural government’s third-party committee and the section in charge of information from whistleblowers. The Article 100 committee, in particular, is a body of the prefectural assembly that is independent of the governor’s authority, so it should not be affected by the outcome of the gubernatorial election. The committee needs to conduct a rigorous investigation.

It is concerning that there has been a spate of incidents of slander and defamation against members of the committee. One committee member resigned from the prefectural assembly after being defamed on social media. He reportedly felt that the safety of him and his family was under threat.

Takashi Tachibana, leader of the political group NHK Party, ran in the gubernatorial election only to support Saito and gave a speech in front of the home of the chairperson of the Article 100 committee. A video that shows Tachibana shouting, “Come out!” and pressing the intercom button has been posted online. The chairperson later recalled that he felt “terrorized.”

Intimidating words and actions that could stifle legitimate investigative activities are absolutely unacceptable. If there were any actions that violated the law, the people involved must be held accountable from the perspective of both criminal and civil laws.

The Consumer Affairs Agency is considering introducing criminal punishments regarding any disadvantageous response to whistleblowers. The protection of whistleblowers is a social necessity.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 24, 2024)