October 7, 2011
Akahata editorial (excerpts)
The first trial of former Democratic Party of Japan president Ozawa Ichiro (House of Representatives) took place on October 6 at the Tokyo District Court. Ozawa was indicted for alleged involvement in falsifying political fund reports regarding the land purchase of his political fund-managing body, Rikuzankai. The three former aides who were also indicted for the same allegation before Ozawa have already been given a guilty verdict. The focal point of Ozawa’s trial is whether or not the court recognizes that Ozawa committed the falsification of the fund reports in conspiracy with his aides.
It is significant that Ozawa was brought to court for trial due to the demand that was made twice by a citizens’ inquest panel to indict him while public prosecutors pressed to not indict him. Ozawa should be made to respond not only in court but also in the Diet.
At his first trial, Ozawa denied guilt to all charges and called for the cancellation of the trial. He showed no sign of responding to the indictment by the citizens’ panel.
Ozawa has not provided any explanation before the Diet about Rikuzankai’s allegations of violating the Political Funds Control Law since it was revealed. At news conferences, he repeatedly changed his explanation regarding where he received funds to purchase the land.
Ozawa refused to voluntarily respond to the allegations made against him in both chambers’ Deliberative Council on Political Ethics, which is required by the Code of Political Ethics adopted by the Diet in 1985. Furthermore, although opposition parties, including the Japanese Communist Party, called for summoning Ozawa to the Diet as a sworn witness, the ruling DPJ refused to do so.
The basic question in regard to Ozawa’s scandal is how he obtained a large amount of money used for the land purchase. The trial of Ozawa’s former secretaries shed light on the structure under which Ozawa covered the cost of his political activities with huge donations from general construction contractors by using his influence on orders for public works projects. Ozawa should have been accused of bribery. Even though the justice system did not charge Ozawa with bribery, his moral responsibility should be severely called into question. The need now for the Diet is to thoroughly investigate Ozawa’s role in the scandal and determine his responsibility.
The first trial of former Democratic Party of Japan president Ozawa Ichiro (House of Representatives) took place on October 6 at the Tokyo District Court. Ozawa was indicted for alleged involvement in falsifying political fund reports regarding the land purchase of his political fund-managing body, Rikuzankai. The three former aides who were also indicted for the same allegation before Ozawa have already been given a guilty verdict. The focal point of Ozawa’s trial is whether or not the court recognizes that Ozawa committed the falsification of the fund reports in conspiracy with his aides.
It is significant that Ozawa was brought to court for trial due to the demand that was made twice by a citizens’ inquest panel to indict him while public prosecutors pressed to not indict him. Ozawa should be made to respond not only in court but also in the Diet.
At his first trial, Ozawa denied guilt to all charges and called for the cancellation of the trial. He showed no sign of responding to the indictment by the citizens’ panel.
Ozawa has not provided any explanation before the Diet about Rikuzankai’s allegations of violating the Political Funds Control Law since it was revealed. At news conferences, he repeatedly changed his explanation regarding where he received funds to purchase the land.
Ozawa refused to voluntarily respond to the allegations made against him in both chambers’ Deliberative Council on Political Ethics, which is required by the Code of Political Ethics adopted by the Diet in 1985. Furthermore, although opposition parties, including the Japanese Communist Party, called for summoning Ozawa to the Diet as a sworn witness, the ruling DPJ refused to do so.
The basic question in regard to Ozawa’s scandal is how he obtained a large amount of money used for the land purchase. The trial of Ozawa’s former secretaries shed light on the structure under which Ozawa covered the cost of his political activities with huge donations from general construction contractors by using his influence on orders for public works projects. Ozawa should have been accused of bribery. Even though the justice system did not charge Ozawa with bribery, his moral responsibility should be severely called into question. The need now for the Diet is to thoroughly investigate Ozawa’s role in the scandal and determine his responsibility.
