The man accused of assassinating Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe is due to receive his verdict on Wednesday, more than three years after the killing stunned the country and triggered far-reaching political and social repercussions. The case has drawn intense public attention, reflecting both the scale of the crime and the deeper questions it raised about political influence, security and religious organisations in Japan.
Tetsuya Yamagami, now 45, is charged with murder and violations of Japan’s firearms control laws for fatally shooting Abe during an election campaign speech in Nara in July 2022. Abe, Japan’s longest-serving post-war prime minister, was killed in broad daylight using a homemade firearm, an act that shocked a society where gun violence is exceptionally rare. On Wednesday morning, members of the public queued outside the court in Nara to obtain entry passes, underlining sustained national interest in the outcome of the trial.
During hearings that began in October, Yamagami admitted responsibility for Abe’s death but disputed aspects of the additional charges against him, according to Japanese media. Under Japan’s legal system, proceedings continue even when a defendant acknowledges guilt, allowing the court to fully examine motive, planning and wider consequences. Prosecutors have sought a life sentence, describing the killing as unprecedented in Japan’s post-war history and arguing that it carried profound societal implications. While life imprisonment in Japan technically allows for parole, legal experts note that many inmates sentenced to life die in custody.
Central to the trial has been the question of motive. Prosecutors have argued that Yamagami targeted Abe not out of personal animosity but as a means of drawing attention to the Unification Church, a religious organisation founded in South Korea in 1954. They say he believed that by killing a political figure of Abe’s stature, he could expose and damage the Church, which he blamed for the collapse of his family. Abe had appeared at events linked to groups associated with the Church, a fact prosecutors said reinforced Yamagami’s belief that influential politicians were helping it maintain legitimacy.
The defence has sought leniency by focusing on Yamagami’s personal history, which it characterised as marked by what it described as religious abuse. His lawyers told the court that his mother’s devotion to the Unification Church intensified after his father’s suicide, leading her to donate vast sums in an attempt to “save” the family. Those contributions, they said, eventually amounted to around 100 million yen, plunging the household into bankruptcy. As a result, Yamagami abandoned plans for higher education, attempted suicide in 2005 and later lost his brother, who also took his own life.
The assassination prompted a broader reckoning within Japanese politics. Subsequent investigations revealed extensive links between the Unification Church and members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, leading to the resignation of several ministers and renewed scrutiny of the relationship between religion and politics. The government later moved to tighten oversight of religious organisations and strengthen protections against exploitative fundraising practices.
Prosecutors have also emphasised the premeditated nature of the attack. Evidence presented to the court showed that Yamagami began constructing a firearm as early as 2020, carrying out test firings in remote mountainous areas before the attack. The weapon, assembled from readily available materials, underscored vulnerabilities in public security despite Japan’s stringent gun laws.
The killing exposed shortcomings in close-protection arrangements. A police report later concluded that officers at the scene initially failed to recognise the sound of the first gunshot, delaying their response and contributing to the fatal outcome. The incident has since led to reviews of security protocols for public figures.
As Japan awaits the verdict, the case continues to resonate beyond the courtroom. For many, it remains a stark reminder of how individual grievance, institutional influence and gaps in security converged in an act that permanently altered the country’s political landscape.
