Ghanaian Man Battling Kidney Disease Loses Japan Supreme Court Appeal After Losing Welfare Support

• A Ghanaian man receiving treatment for chronic kidney failure in Japan had his welfare application rejected
• The man argued the rejection violated Japan's Public Assistance Act and the constitutional right to survival
• One of four justices dissented, arguing that the law excluding foreign nationals from welfare eligibility for medical treatment is unconstitutional

A 36-year-old Ghanaian man undergoing treatment for chronic kidney failure in Japan has lost his Supreme Court appeal after challenging the city of Chiba's decision to deny him public assistance on the basis of his nationality.

The Second Petty Bench of Japan's Supreme Court ruled on September 9 that the plaintiff had no valid grounds for a final appeal. The bench did not address the constitutional question at the heart of the case.

The man developed severe kidney failure in 2019, after which his residency status in Japan was designated as "Designated Activities" for the purpose of medical treatment. Unable to work under that classification, he applied for public assistance through Chiba city.

Read also

Ghana's £10million tourism shirt deal with Sunderland in limbo

The Mainichi reported that the city rejected his application, stating that he did not qualify as a national under the Public Assistance Act, which explicitly limits eligibility to Japanese citizens.

The plaintiff argued that the rejection was unconstitutional, citing Article 25 of Japan's Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to survival. The Chiba District Court dismissed the case in January 2024, ruling that whether to extend public assistance to foreign nationals falls within the legislature's discretion and that the man's residency status was not covered by existing administrative measures that provide de facto welfare access to certain foreign residents. The Tokyo High Court upheld that ruling in August 2024.

Sole Dissent From Presiding Justice

Presiding Justice Mamoru Miura, a former prosecutor and the only one of the four justices to dissent, argued that the relevant provision of the Public Assistance Act is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Miura stated that "if foreign nationals undergoing medical treatment who are unable to work cannot maintain a minimum standard of living in Japan, it is difficult for them to avoid danger to their survival." He argued the high court's ruling should have been overturned and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Read also

Mahama delivers strongest assurance yet on National Cathedral

Japan's Supreme Court had previously ruled in 2014 that foreign nationals do not hold a legal right to public assistance benefits. However, as an administrative measure grounded in humanitarian considerations, benefits are extended to certain groups including permanent residents, long-term residents, special permanent residents such as Korean residents in Japan, and recognised refugees. In fiscal year 2024, the monthly average stood at 47,332 recipient households headed by foreign nationals.

The Ghanaian plaintiff's residency category as a medical treatment designee placed him outside the scope of those administrative protections, leaving him without recourse following the Supreme Court's decision.

Source: YEN.com.gh