Legal Clash: Fukushima Disaster Victims Demand Impeachment of Supreme Court Judges Over Compensation Ruling

On June 1, in relation to the Supreme Court’s ruling from June 2022 that denied the government’s liability for damages from the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, other plaintiffs and attorneys filed a request to the National Assembly’s Judicial Impeachment Committee to seek the dismissal of two judges. However, cases where individuals face actual impeachment and are examined by the National Assembly’s “Impeachment Court” are rare and refer to a “narrow gate.” Nonetheless, why did they decide to take this step? (By Rieko Ota)

Lawyer Naoko Miyagoshi (far right) explains the summary of the impeachment request against the Supreme Court justices on June 1 at the First Members’ Hall of the House of Representatives (Photo by Tetsuya Sato)

◆ No Clear Judgment on Tsunami Predictability

“It is an extraordinary situation for Supreme Court justices to rule without adhering to the law. Judges lacking the ability or will to conduct fair trials must be dismissed through impeachment.” Attorney Naoko Miyagoshi, one of the petitioners, emphasized this at a press conference in Tokyo. A total of ten individuals, including plaintiffs and lawyers, were listed as petitioners.

Lawyer Naoko Miyagoshi (far right) explains the summary of the impeachment request against the Supreme Court justices on June 1 at the First Members’ Hall of the House of Representatives (Photo by Tetsuya Sato)

The issue at hand was the judgment the Supreme Court provided for the first time regarding the government’s responsibility in four lawsuits filed in Fukushima and Gunma prefectures. The main points of contention were whether a huge tsunami could have been predicted based on the government’s 2002 earthquake forecast report “Long-Term Evaluation” and whether the accident could have been prevented if appropriate countermeasures such as seawalls had been implemented.

In the high court ruling, the three cases other than Gunma established that the tsunami was predictable and that the accident could be prevented, thereby recognizing the government’s liability. However, the small bench failed to provide a clear judgment on the reliability and predictability of the long-term evaluation, stating, “Even if appropriate preventive measures were taken, there was a significant possibility that the accident could have still occurred,” thereby denying the government’s compensation responsibility. This conclusion was reached by justices Hiroyuki Sugano, Koichi Kusano, and Kazumi Okamura as the “majority opinion,” while judge Mamoru Miura was the only one to recognize the government’s responsibility.

◆ Voices Representing the Desire for Restoration of Victims’ Rights

The Supreme Court does not hold hearings to determine the facts based on civil litigation law; instead, it deliberates on constitutional judgments and statutory interpretations. However, attorney Miyagoshi and her colleagues criticized it for “ignoring necessary legal interpretations while overturning the second-instance ruling.” Judge Miura also criticized the majority opinion in his dissenting opinion, stating, “The majority opinion takes as its premise a viewpoint that has overlooked significant dangers and did not undergo suitable examination under the safety assessment.” The petitioners argue that this contradicts the constitutional provision that “judges are bound only by the Constitution and the law,” and requested the impeachment of justices Kusano and Okamura, excluding the retired Sugano.

Supreme Court

Lower court rulings in similar lawsuits had varied regarding the government’s liability, but since the small bench ruling, judgments denying the government’s responsibility have continued. Currently, many disaster victims are still forced to live in evacuation situations. Writer Katsu Kamata, who joined the petitioners, emphasized, “The ruling has significantly impacted the government’s policy, which has reversed the trend away from nuclear power. The request also represents the wishes of those seeking the restoration of their individual rights and living rights that have been violated by the nuclear power accident.”

The Supreme Court’s Public Relations Office responded to inquiries by stating, “We will refrain from commenting.”

◆ “99% Difficult to Impeach,” Yet…

Based on the Constitution, the “Judicial Impeachment System” allows the petition of citizens to be addressed by a prosecution committee made up of national assembly members, who decide on the appropriateness of impeachment. If impeachment is pursued, an impeachment court consisting of 14 national assembly members will hold a public trial to determine whether to dismiss the judges.

However, it is uncertain whether the hearings will take place in the future. From the introduction of the system soon after World War II until last year, out of about 24,000 impeachment requests, only ten cases reached impeachment trials, primarily those where judges committed criminal acts. In April of this year, former judge Motoki Okaguchi of the Sendai High Court was dismissed due to inappropriate postings on social media, garnering much attention.

Lawyer Toshitaka Onodera, one of the petitioners, revealed, “It is said that impeachment is 99% difficult.” Nonetheless, he keeps in mind the existence of over 20 disaster victims who are still fighting in similar lawsuits. “The request questions the judges’ conscience and fairness. If it serves as a warning to judges in other lawsuits, then all the better.”