The third-party investigation committee of Hyogo Prefecture released its long-awaited report on March 19, 2025, detailing findings on the handling of whistleblower documents involving Governor Saito. The report asserts that Saito's actions, which included searching for the whistleblower without appropriate investigation into the allegations, were in direct violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
The committee, consisting of six lawyers including former judges, was established amid accusations of bias in the initial investigations conducted by prefectoral authorities. The comprehensive investigation included interviews with 60 individuals and over 90 hours of hearings, focusing on allegations against Governor Saito that were brought forth in a whistleblower document submitted anonymously by the late former head of the Nishi-Harima Civil Affairs Office.
In total, the investigation examined 16 separate allegations against Saito. Of these, ten were validated as constituting power harassment. Specific incidents highlighted included Saito reprimanding an employee who merely greeted him twenty meters from the entrance of a business venue during a business trip and exhibiting outrage when a prefectural project was covered in the media without his prior knowledge.
Furthermore, the third-party committee criticized the prefecture’s decision to discipline the former civil affairs director for disseminating the whistleblower document, categorizing this action as an abuse of discretion and, ultimately, illegal. The report stated that Saito's reaction to accusations at a press conference in March 2024 was not only unwarranted but constituted power harassment. During this conference, he claimed the former director produced false documentation, labeling the content as unsubstantiated without any evidence to support such a claim.
The report concluded that the prefectural government failed to provide an adequate response to the allegations outlined in the whistleblower document, which detailed not only power harassment by Saito but also accusations of the acceptance of gifts from contractors and other unethical behaviors.
In an earlier internal review by the prefectural personnel division, officials concluded that the core allegations in the whistleblower document were largely unsubstantiated and characterized them as defamatory. However, such findings were dismissed by the newly established third-party committee, which argued that the whistleblower’s claims constituted public interest reporting and deserved an earnest and transparent investigation rather than punitive actions against the whistleblower.
Following the release of the report, committee chairman Fujimoto emphasized the importance of the findings that stemmed from a commitment to integrity and fairness. He urged the prefecture to take the report seriously and consider the implications of its findings on governance.
This scrutiny of Saito’s administration comes on the heels of a special investigative committee in the prefectural assembly that recently reported on the same issues, identifying significant breaches of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Yet, despite the mounting evidence, Saito has publicly rejected these allegations, framing them as one-sided interpretations of the facts.
Observers are closely monitoring Saito's reactions to the report and any potential ramifications it may entail for his position as governor. With calls for accountability growing louder, the next steps taken by the prefectural government may prove influential in shaping public trust at a time when transparency and ethical governance are increasingly pivotal in local politics.
As the political landscape continues to evolve in Hyogo Prefecture, the implications of this report extend beyond the immediate context of Governor Saito’s governance; they resonate with wider concerns regarding the treatment of whistleblowers and the safeguarding of public interests within administrative frameworks.
