Background of “Start of a crafan to question the right to know” on the issue of Ms. Wishma
Response history to “past disclosure requests” becomes “undisclosed”…
In the case of Sri Lankan national Wishma Sandhamari, who died in March at a facility of the Nagoya Immigration and Residence Bureau, on December 24, six hours and 26 minutes of footage from two weeks’ worth of surveillance cameras at the facility, which recorded the events immediately prior to her death, were disclosed to Wishma’s family and to a limited number of people, including the director of the House of Representatives Committee on Legal Affairs. According to the family’s lawyers, the footage was disclosed to Wishma’s family and to a limited number of people, including the director of the House of Representatives Committee on Justice.
According to the family’s lawyers, when Ms. Wishesma moaned,
When the news of Ms. Wishma’s death was reported, there were many comments on SNS such as, “It’s too much,” “Why didn’t they call an ambulance?
The family of the deceased appealed, “There are still many things we don’t know, and this is not the end.
By the way, did you know that on the same day, the 24th, a crowdfunding campaign was launched on CALL4, Japan’s first web platform dedicated to supporting visas that aim to solve social issues, for a “lawsuit that raises issues in disclosure lawsuits”? It is led by Mr. WADA, the “demon of disclosure requests” of the disclosure request cluster.
In an interview with our website, he said, ”
The case of Ms. Wyshma itself is unacceptable from a humanitarian standpoint. The family of the deceased has been accused of murder in this case, and in their request for disclosure of information, it is known that more than 10,000 documents have been blacked out.
However, this time, I made a disclosure request in response to a “past disclosure request” to see what kind of disclosure requests had been made to Ms. Wyshma in the past.
This is not a request to expose Ms. Wishma’s personal information, and it should not be a problem for anyone, as only the name and contact information of the individual who made the disclosure request should be blacked out.
However, the Immigration Bureau issued a decision not to disclose all of the information in response to a very common request for disclosure that was not very difficult.
The decision not to disclose all of the documents was made on the following disclosure requests.
“With regard to requests for disclosure made up to the date of receipt of this request for disclosure (August 20) regarding the death of a Sri Lankan woman at the Nagoya Immigration and Residence Bureau, (1) all documents that show the review and decision-making process that led to the decision to disclose or not disclose (e.g., drafts, resolutions, meeting records, records of other ministries, agencies, the Prime Minister, Ministers of State, etc.) (2) All documents that show the date, time, and content of the decision to disclose or not disclose.
To put it simply, this is a disclosure request that only asks for the response history, such as “what kind of disclosure requests were made in the past” and “what process was used to decide on disclosure or non-disclosure. Why was it deemed undisclosed?
The reasons given were: ‘There is a risk that the frank exchange of opinions will be impaired or that the neutrality of decision-making will be unfairly impaired.
However, if all past requests for disclosure are allowed to go unanswered, the information disclosure system itself, which monitors the administration, will not be able to survive.
In fact, when I made a similar request to the Cabinet Office for disclosure of the “cherry blossom viewing party” in response to a “past disclosure request,” only the personal information was masked and disclosed. When I made a similar request to the Cabinet Office for disclosure of the “past disclosure requests,” only personal information was masked and disclosed, including the decision documents, who made the inquiries, and who approved them.
In spite of this, the Immigration Bureau refused to disclose any of the information. Either there is something very inconvenient about Ms. Wishma’s case, especially for the Immigration Bureau, or they are not willing to respond to any of the disclosure requests.
I think we need to find out what exactly it is that they were trying to hide. In any case, the decision not to release any information even though a person has died is inexcusable, so I decided to file a lawsuit in order to throw a stone at the secrecy of the Immigration Bureau.
I don’t understand the reason for the nondisclosure at all…
Teruhito Watanabe, the lawyer in charge of the case, also explains why he took on the lawsuit filed by WADA.
The request for disclosure to the Immigration Bureau by Mr. WADA was in response to a previous request for disclosure, and I thought it should be disclosed proactively.
I thought it was so terrible that they didn’t disclose all of them, so I said, “Screw you! So I thought I had no choice but to file a lawsuit. I thought it was too bad that all of them were not disclosed, so I thought I had no choice but to file a lawsuit against them, making full use of words that should not normally be used in the disclosure of past information, such as “risk of damaging the frank exchange of opinions,” for reasons that I could not understand. I don’t understand.
When I asked him about the issues in this case, he said.
To be honest, I can only say that I don’t know what the issue is. To be honest, I can only say that I don’t really understand the point of contention, because I don’t understand the reason for nondisclosure at all, and it’s something that doesn’t happen very often.
Because of the death of a person, there may be something in there that could lead to criminal charges against the immigration officials.
Crowdfunding for “clarifying the decision-making process
What Mr. WADA is seeking in his lawsuit is as follows.
Mr. WADA’s request in the lawsuit is as follows: “I am asking for clarification of the content of the disclosure requests regarding Ms. WISHMA’s case made up to August 19, 2021, when I made my disclosure request, and the review and decision-making process that took place at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in making the decision on these requests.”
The comments from the lawyers are as follows.
As a country of nationalism and democracy, all administrative documents should be open to the public. In order not to allow the practice of withholding documents for arbitrary reasons, it is important to demand disclosure ‘like a storm’ and to litigate problematic cases. I would like to create such a trend in this country.
This crowdfunding campaign, “Revealing the decision-making process for past disclosure requests! ～The target amount for this crowdfunding project is 400,000 yen. The donation will be used for “court costs and legal fees (including contingency fees).
It should be noted that this is an administrative lawsuit “seeking revocation of non-disclosure and mandatory disclosure,” not a claim for damages, so even if we win the case outright, it will be “taken out. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the lawsuit was “approved,” as the government suddenly “approved” the lawsuit for damages filed by Masako, Toshio Akagi’s wife, in the Akagi File case to clarify the truth and put an end to the case.
We will have to wait and see whether this lawsuit will lead to the disclosure of new information, along with the future of various problems at the Immigration Bureau.
Reporting and writing： Wakako Tago
Born in 1973. After working for a publishing company and an advertising production company, became a freelance writer. In addition to interviewing actors for weekly and monthly magazines, she writes drama columns for a variety of media. JUMP 9 no Tobira ga Openitoki" (both published by Earl's Publishing).
