HYOGO, Mar 20 (News On Japan) - A third-party panel investigating allegations of power harassment against Hyogo Governor Motohiko Saito submitted its findings to the prefectural government on March 19th, concluding that ten instances of his conduct constituted workplace harassment.
The report also determined that the whistleblower’s allegations were credible and met the criteria for public-interest disclosure, stating that whistleblower protections should apply. The panel criticized Saito’s involvement in determining disciplinary measures against the whistleblower as "extremely inappropriate."
The report detailed multiple allegations against Saito, including reprimanding staff harshly, making dismissive gestures such as sighing and tongue-clicking, and issuing unreasonable demands. It also criticized his attempts to identify and penalize the whistleblower, a former director of the prefectural citizens’ bureau, calling the actions not only improper but also illegal.
The release of the report raises significant questions about Saito’s future and the response of the prefectural assembly. Legal experts and governance specialists have weighed in, with some emphasizing the severity of the findings. Lawyer Takuya Kawasaki and Hosei University Professor Hiroshi Shiratori both noted that the committee’s tone suggested strong dissatisfaction with Saito’s conduct. Shiratori commented, "The panel's anger is palpable."
The controversy has also reignited concerns about the treatment of whistleblowers in Japan. The panel concluded that the governor’s involvement in investigating the whistleblower violated public-interest disclosure laws, which prohibit retaliatory actions. While these laws currently lack strict penalties, the findings have sparked calls for legislative revisions to strengthen protections.
Saito has so far downplayed the committee’s conclusions, previously stating that the prefectural assembly’s investigation represented "one viewpoint." However, with two independent reports now delivering harsh assessments, pressure is mounting on the governor. Political analysts suggest that the assembly may need to reconsider a no-confidence motion, and some argue that Saito himself should take responsibility and step down.
As the debate unfolds, the key question remains: How will Saito and the prefectural government respond to the growing calls for accountability?
Source: MBS
