On March 5, 2025, the Hyogo Prefectural Assembly overwhelmingly approved the final report from the investigation by the special committee—known as the 100-member committee—into serious allegations of power harassment against Governor Motohiko Saito. The report, which drew significant attention and controversy, detailed not only the accusations against Saito but also the handling of whistleblower protections by the prefectural authority.
The committee's findings revealed serious shortcomings, stating, "The response could be perceived as a whistleblower hunt and lacked objectivity and fairness, posing significant problems." It criticized the prefecture for identifying and publicly naming the whistleblower, which raised concerns about potential violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
One of the primary figures involved, Councilor Makoto Masuyama, was vocal against the report’s conclusions, arguing it contained "logical leaps" and chosen selectively to support its claims. Despite his objections, the majority of assembly members supported the report. The findings acknowledged the legitimacy of allegations made against Saito, particularly concerning his treatment of staff, which was characterized as more than mere reprimanding. According to the report, it is "not overstepping to call it power harassment."
Notably, the report concluded with expectations directed toward Saito, urging him to "act strictly as the leader of Hyogo Prefecture." It also highlighted the report's discovery of certain factual relationships concerning accusations against Saito involving gifts and inappropriate behavior.
The committee's process, initiated following whistleblower concerns, involved thorough investigations for nearly nine months before presenting the findings. The governor's staff faced criticism for their treatment of the whistleblower, identified as the late former head of the Nishiharima Prefectural Civil Affairs Bureau. This was seen as the core issue driving the investigation.
Not all assembly members agreed with the report's findings. Masuyama, alongside other minority voices, including former members from the Nippon Ishin no Kai party, continued to voice dissent, alleging mishandlings throughout the investigation process. Kishida Minoru, another council member involved, abstained from voting just prior to the assembly's decision. All three dissenters faced repercussions, including expulsion or requests to resign from their political party.
During the assembly session following the approval of the report, Governor Saito addressed the media, insisting his responses to the initial whistleblower allegations were appropriate and justified. Despite having stated previously the whistleblower document was "highly defamatory," he acknowledged the Assembly’s view, stating, "I will accept their perspective but stand by the appropriateness of my decisions during this matter."
Critically, Saito also commented on the report's suggestion of potential violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act. "Since it is termed ‘possibility’, it also offers the potential for legality, so opinions clearly diverge on this issue," he noted, reflecting the underlying tension between the assembly's findings and his stance.
The report's approval has thrust Saito's future as governor solidly back under scrutiny. Further discussions among policymakers signal the importance of addressing not just the current scenario but improving the protective measures surrounding those who come forward, ensuring accountability and maintaining fair treatment for all staff within the prefectural service.
These proceedings, aimed at not only examining Saito’s conduct but also broader organizational behaviors, are expected to spark significant dialogue leading up to the next gubernatorial elections, set for the fall of 2024. Many observers will be watching closely, as this investigation has already affected the reputations and political futures of several involved parties.
With intense public and media scrutiny surrounding the actions of the Hyogo governing body, the report serves as both a document of accountability and as an indication of systemic issues needed to be addressed. The decisions and reactions stemming from this report form the foundation for the next steps the Hyogo government will take to restore public trust and adhere to legal standards and ethics going forward.
Overall, this scenario underlines the necessity of ethical practices, vigilance against power harassment, and the ways individuals within government must navigate accountability and transparency when handling such sensitive matters.