Governor Saito Faces Legal Challenge Over Alleged Information Leak, with Experts Highlighting Core Disputes

It has already been confirmed by the third-party committee that the former Director-General of the General Affairs Department leaked information

Former Hyōgo Governor Motohiko Saito (47) may soon face the hand of justice――.

At the Hyōgo Prefectural Assembly’s General Affairs Standing Committee held on August 18, a question was raised to the head of the Personnel Division about whether the governor had been informed that on June 27, Tsubasa Tachibana (58), head of the “NHK Party,” had posted a photo of a folder claimed to be the contents of a former prefectural bureau chief’s computer on X.

The reason for this was that at the regular press conference held on July 2, when asked for his opinion as governor regarding this post on X, Governor Saito replied:

“I am not aware of what kind of post was made.”

The Personnel Division head, however, said:

“I don’t remember the date, but I did report it.”

and further stated:

“On July 2 we requested the platform operator to delete the harmful information.”

What does this mean? There are five days between June 27 and July 2. Did the Personnel Division head fail to report it to the governor? Since the request to delete the post was made on July 2, it seems likely that the information would have reached Governor Saito before the press conference.

At the regular press conference held on August 26, questions about this matter naturally came up from reporters, and Governor Saito’s response was even more surprising than his previous answers. A reporter asked:

“On the day before the July 2 press conference, the Personnel Division head explained to the governor which post was to be deleted and why. Was it appropriate for you to answer, ‘I am not aware’?”

Governor Saito responded:

“I believe it was appropriate.”

The reporter pressed further:

“Isn’t it contradictory to say you were explained but not aware?”

Saito replied:

“I was informed about the leak of prefectural information, but I did not see the specific content.”

This goes beyond surprising—one can only say it is remarkable.

No subordinate would explain leaked information without stating specifically what it was, and no superior would fail to ask what it was. But Governor Saito seems to be an exception among exceptions.

Every time it’s the same story, but can he really get away with this?

Two days after the General Affairs Standing Committee meeting, on August 20, reports emerged that further cornered Governor Saito, already surrounded by suspicions.

In the case of the leak of private information of the former bureau chief, a criminal complaint was filed in June against Governor Saito, former Vice Governor Yasutaka Katayama, and former General Affairs Director Tomoaki Inomoto on suspicion of violating the Local Public Service Act (duty of confidentiality), and it has now been reported that the Kobe District Public Prosecutors Office has accepted the complaint.

Regarding Inomoto, it has already been established by the third-party investigative committee (hereafter third-party committee) set up by the prefecture that he leaked the information, and the prefecture has admitted this and imposed disciplinary action on him.

Speaking to Kyosuke Nishiwaki, a lawyer and former head of TV Asahi’s Legal Affairs Department familiar with the Local Public Service Act:

“There is a strong suspicion of a violation of Article 34 of the Local Public Service Act concerning confidentiality obligations. If violated, the penalty is imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 500,000 yen. Since the prefecture has acknowledged and disciplined Inomoto for the leak, if the investigation yields the same result, there is a possibility of criminal punishment.”

However, the real focus here is not the former General Affairs Director’s breach of confidentiality. The third-party committee stated:

“There is a high possibility that the leak was carried out under instructions from the governor or the former vice governor.”

Of course, Governor Saito denies this.

“The key point is whether Mr. Inomoto acted on his own, or whether he did so under the instructions of the governor or his workplace superiors. That will be the major dividing line.

Depending on that, the issue becomes whether Mr. Inomoto himself bears heavy responsibility, or whether it was somewhat unavoidable because he was following orders from his superiors. This will affect both the circumstances for consideration and the degree of maliciousness. If instructions were indeed given, then Article 62 of the Local Public Service Act would apply to those who gave them,” said lawyer Nishiwaki.

Article 62 of the Local Public Service Act states regarding illegal acts such as breaches of confidentiality by local public servants:

“A person who plans, orders, deliberately condones, instigates, or aids and abets such acts shall be subject to the same penalties prescribed in each article.”

According to Nishiwaki:

“If there was a directive from Governor Saito, given the superior-subordinate relationship between the governor and the General Affairs Director, it would normally be considered to fall under this provision’s orders. At the very least, it would amount to instigation. In either case, there is a strong possibility of a violation of the Local Public Service Act.”

That said, it seems unlikely that Governor Saito will admit to this so easily.

If an appropriate official order was not issued, it amounts to condoning

And upon receiving the third-party committee’s report, former Vice Governor Katayama countered:

“I heard from another staff member that there was an instruction from the governor, but I understood it not as a specific individual instruction, but as a comprehensive approval of lobbying the assembly.”

Furthermore, prefectural executives also insisted in unison that:

“There was nothing specific such as with whom and how information should be shared,”

denying any specific instructions from the governor.

Can Governor Saito really get away with this claim of no specific instructions? On this point, lawyer Nishiwaki points out:

“Article 62 of the Local Public Service Act has a wide scope.”

He explained:

“Under this provision, even deliberately condoning an illegal act makes one subject to punishment. If a superior knows that an illegal act is taking place but merely gives a token warning without issuing an appropriate official order, that amounts to condoning and could be treated as the same crime.” (Nishiwaki)

On that basis, Nishiwaki questions whether Governor Saito can escape accountability:

“The personal information of the former Prefectural Bureau Director has been officially recognized by the Hyogo Prefectural authorities as confidential through personnel measures. If the governor instructed or condoned sharing that confidential information externally, then even without specifying the recipient of the leak, it can be regarded that he recognized his own involvement in the leakage of secrets. Therefore, if there was indeed an instruction, it would naturally be considered a violation of Article 62 of the Local Public Service Act.”

Governor Saito has been described as impregnable, but will these suspicions ever be clarified? Attention now turns to the progress of the investigation.