Arbitrary Decision of Extending Tenure
The Osaka District Court ordered the state of Japan to disclose documents on internal discussion in Ministry of Justice over extending the tenure of an officer of the ministry in 2020. Denying the existence of the document related to the extension of the officer’s tenure, the ministry had refused the request of disclosure by a scholar. However, the court found that there was no reason for the decision of the government to extend the tenure but arbitrarily letting the officer stay in the office, even though the government denied it. The court decision may disclose not only a document but excessive intervention of a cabinet led by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the organization for law enforcement.
In January 2020, Shinzo Abe Cabinet made a decision of changing interpretation of law to extend the limit of retirement of prosecutors, which had been set at 63 years old, except the prosecutor general. By that change of interpretation, tenure of the head of Tokyo High Public Prosecutors Office, Hiromu Kurokawa, was extended for six months. Kurokawa would have been retiring the office on his 63rd birthday in February.
Because then prosecutor general was supposed to retire in August, the extension of tenure would pave the way for Kurokawa to succeed the prosecutor general without retiring the office. Kurokawa was known as an officer in the office very close to some leaders of Abe administration, the opposition party questioned that cabinet decision in the Diet discussion, doubting that Abe arbitrarily extended Kurokawa’s tenure to appoint him to the prosecutor general.
Professor Hiroshi Kamiwaki of Kobe Gakuin University, who is known as discovering the failure of reporting political funds of lawmakers that led to current slush fund scandal in the Liberal Democratic Party, requested Ministry of Justice to disclose the documents related to extension of Kurokawa’s tenure, and filed a lawsuit to turn down the decision of the ministry not to disclose them.
The Chief Judge of Osaka District Court, Atsushi Tokuchi, dismissed the argument of the ministry that the extension of tenure had not been an arbitral decision to let Kurokawa stay. “It is difficult to find that there was a change in social or economic condition for changing interpretation of law, and no request for change to improve crime investigation could be found,” said Tokuchi.
Although Kurokawa’s tenure was extended, he resigned as the head of the office, before setting at the post of the prosecutor general, when his private mahjong playing betting money with journalists was reported in a magazine. However, changing rule in prosecutors office was regarded as explicit intervention by politicians.
To pass the bills for changing interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, which had been recognized that the constitution would not tolerate the government of Japan exercising collective self-defense right, Abe replaced the Director-General of Cabinet Legislation Bureau to a person who would preferably act for the administration.
The cabinet decision on Kurokawa was made in a form of accepting request from the ministry. When the document is disclosed, it will reveal how the bureaucrats discussed and drew a conclusion which would be preferrable to the administration. This issue is related to independence of law enforcement in Japan.
Comments
Post a Comment