A report from four people from the Prime Minister’s Office who participated in discussions with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau regarding the state funeral of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The fourth oral argument in the state funeral document concealment trial was held on October 9, 2025. The gallery seats in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court, commonly known as the “Grand Courtroom,” were about 90% full.

This is an unprecedented development in court proceedings. Presiding Judge Kenji Shinoda himself has been throwing one question after another at the defendant, the government, which is being pushed into a corner.

During the oral argument that day, Presiding Judge Shinoda made a proposal that surprised even the plaintiffs.

Four participants identified

Let’s review.

The trial focuses on a three-day period from July 12 to 14, 2022. Is it legally acceptable for the Cabinet alone to decide to hold a state funeral for former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who was assassinated on July 8? The Cabinet Legislation Bureau, known as the “guardian of the law,” along with the Cabinet Secretariat and Cabinet Office, held discussions.

Although Tansa filed an information disclosure request for the records of the three-day discussion, the government claims that they do not exist because they “did not keep records or discarded the records.” The reason for not keeping or discarding records is that “the content was not important enough to affect decision-making.”

However, then Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated at press conferences and in the Diet that he had “thoroughly coordinated with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau” to hold a state funeral by cabinet decision. There is no doubt that this was an important conversation. The plaintiff, Tansa, has adopted the catchphrase “There’s no way a state funeral document doesn’t exist.”

Presiding Judge Shinoda wanted to know the specifics of the three days of discussion, in order to confirm whether they contained any information that should be recorded and preserved. However, the government initially evaded the topic completely. At the third oral argument, Presiding Judge Shinoda assigned the judges homework to report on what was discussed, when, and with an awareness of the 5W1H.

As a result, the government submitted a “report” as a brief for the fourth oral argument, listing the names and positions of the four bureaucrats from the Prime Minister’s Office who participated in the three-day discussion, as well as their recollections of the time. This is as reported in our October 6th article, “Four people from the Prime Minister’s Office who participated in the three-day consultations with the Legislative Bureau have been identified; contradiction in information disclosure request with “non-existence” – trial over state funeral document cover-up.”〓

Judge: What was the approval process like?

During the oral argument that day, Presiding Judge Shinoda commented on the government’s brief, saying, “I understand very well that a total of four people were present at the discussion with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, but…” and then pointed out something.

“What kind of team was involved in the internal deliberation, the preparation of the paper, and the approval process? Was it just two people from the Cabinet Secretariat and two people from the Cabinet Office? Were assistants or staff involved in the work? What was the approval process like?”

“Something that shows the structure of the deliberation team. For example, an organizational chart of the department. I would like an explanation on the team under which the deliberation was carried out within the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office.”

That’s a very valid point.

When considering such a significant matter as holding a state funeral for a former prime minister, there is no way that these four people alone could be responsible for everything from discussion to decision-making. Decisions are made based on information from the participants in the discussion and after further coordination with the relevant parties. Ultimately, the matter is reported to former Prime Minister Kishida, who answers questions at press conferences and in the Diet, so the information must have been shared with dozens of people. There is no way that all of this is done verbally.

Presiding Judge: “Proof of document search”

Presiding Judge Shinoda made one more request to the government.

“Document search evidence.”

In response to Tansa’s information disclosure request, the four who submitted the report claimed they had looked for the document but “it did not exist.”

Presiding Judge Shinoda did not accept this at face value either.

“When a request for disclosure of documents is received by an administrative agency, the normal routine is for the department in charge to request the relevant departments to search for the documents.”

“To what extent was the search carried out, and how? The report states that four people searched their own computers. Is there any evidence to support the idea that the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office, as organizations, made such a search request but were unable to find anything?”

Next hearing: December 23, Tokyo District Court, Courtroom 103

It was decided that the government would answer Judge Shinoda’s two questions by the next trial. Judge Shinoda then said, “As key figures are beginning to emerge…” and pointed the finger at the plaintiffs.

“Could you please give me a plan, a blueprint, or an outline of whether you will be conducting any witness examinations in the future, and if so, what questions you will ask?”

Witness examination usually takes place at the end of the trial, after oral argument and all the evidence has been presented.

Why did the Judge bring up the subject of witness examination at this stage? Presiding Judge Shinoda continued.

“The reason I say this is that, given the decline in memory among those involved, I believe it would be unfortunate for both the plaintiff and the defendant if they were asked about the past three or five years later and could not remember the details.”

Furthermore, Presiding Judge Shinoda grasps the plaintiff’s intentions in this trial.

“For the plaintiff, the intention of the disclosure request is to actually see the document, and not to be assured that the document exist.’”

“Generally speaking, when a disclosure request like this is made, there are other cases where the information is not initially found within the scope of the search, but is later discovered, as if by chance it was there somewhere.”

“Even if it turns out later in this trial that the document was there when the request for disclosure was made, if time passes and they say ‘we don’t have it anymore,’ then it will be impossible to see the document. In that sense, too, I believe it would be best not to take too many years like three or five years. It would be best to hold the witness examination at an early stage.”

The next hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 23 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court.

(Originally published in Japanese on October 9, 2025. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Democracy Behind Closed Doors: All articles