They Warned of Millions Lost in the Pension Fund. The UN Fired Them.

Last week, the UNDT issued a damning judgment, UNDT /2025/039, Applicant vs Secretary-General which will no doubt have the UN administration pursuing them like hell at the UNAT in an effort to reverse it.

Three bombshell findings before we dive into the details:

1. A senior staff member who dared to raise the alarm about UNJSPF investment policies (policies that resulted in the loss of millions in staff pension money) was swiftly retaliated against and terminated. So even when your warning turns out to be spot on, you’re the one who gets punished for daring to speak up.
2. The very rules that require staff to uphold “the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity,” and to promptly report breaches of UN regulations and rules, are the same ones the UN uses against you when it wants to terminate you.
3. Once again, we’re reminded that OIOS considers itself above the law, routinely defying Tribunal orders for evidence disclosure under the classic pretext of “operational independence.”

But that’s not all.

In this case, we also learn that OIOS’s so-called “seizure of IT equipment” and subsequent “forensic search” was nothing more than a fishing expedition into a staff member’s most private data: personal WhatsApp messages included in a desperate attempt to fabricate misconduct when there was none.

We’re reminded yet again: the Ethics Office’s so-called “protection against retaliation” policy is worthless. It’s time to shut it down alongside the equally hollow Ombudsman’s office. And while we’re at it, the newly created anti-racism office, which excels in PR but is functionally useless.

This case exposes the brutal extent of the Secretary-General’s defense apparatus led by OIOS and the Office of the Secretary-General itself, which will go to extraordinary lengths to protect its own, even if it means destroying careers and staff members’ personal lives.

A former Senior Investment Officer for Fixed Income with the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF), holding a continuing appointment in the Office of Investment Management (OIM) and with over 17 years of UN service, was terminated shortly after raising concerns regarding potential losses of millions of dollars in UNJSPF investments.

The staff member had joined UNJSPF in 2008, right in the middle of one of the worst financial crises in modern history, and was entrusted with managing fixed-income portfolios as head portfolio manager. But things started shifting dramatically once a new Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG) came into office. Not only were the staff member’s responsibilities narrowed, but a new Director at the D-1 level was appointed, effectively sidelining his authority.

Despite this, the staff member and a few OIM colleagues submitted a joint complaint against the RSG, reporting possible misconduct. Why? Because the RSG had unilaterally altered the benchmark for the fixed-income portfolio multiple times. When the staff member raised concerns about these shifts especially as the portfolio’s value began nosediving, he was told this was “not his concern.”

Never mind that the fund was hemorrhaging money and that this was the money of all United Nations staff members.

The Fund had been delivering strong returns for years, well above industry benchmarks. But all that changed under the new RSG. His controversial decisions, taken unilaterally and without proper oversight, led to massive losses. According to the staff member’s own testimony, the reckless shift in policy triggered a 20% drop in the Fund’s value by early 2020.

As the Tribunal plainly stated:

“This courageous action to protect the Pension Fund is at the center of this case.”

The judgment recounts how, in 2019, the benchmark for Fixed Income was changed without an external study, prompting the sell-off of U.S. Treasuries in favor of mortgage-backed securities and emerging market debt, both of which became illiquid and incurred heavy losses during the 2020 financial crash.

To the staff member’s credit, these very concerns were later acknowledged in the OIOS Governance Report, which was also shared with the Secretary-General himself. The Report eventually led to the resignation of the RSG.

But rather than embracing the whistleblowers who’d done the right thing who had, in fact, saved the UN from further collapse, the Administration instead launched a campaign of retaliation.

The message was unmistakable: challenge authority, and you’ll be taken down.

OIOS were sent in, deliberately, to make an example out of the staff member and his colleagues. What followed was  retaliation, plain and simple.

And that’s when the real operation began.

The judgment recounts how the staff member described the creation of an OIOS “Task Force” within the Division of Investigations, followed by a blanket seizure of IT equipment from OIM staff. According to his testimony, this was nothing more than an excuse to dig indiscriminately into private emails and text communications, including conversations between colleagues who had reported misconduct.

Although the OIOS investigation turned up no direct evidence of wrongdoing against the staff member, a case was still manufactured “…from retrieving other people’s private communications and holding him responsible for their thoughts and words.”

And that’s exactly what happened.

Private conversations. WhatsApp messages. Criticisms of failed investment strategies. Thoughts shared in trust with colleagues. All of it was weaponized, used as ammunition in a fabricated misconduct case.

OIOS and the Administration claimed they had the right to conduct these forensic “seizures.” But this was nothing but a forensic fishing expedition. A desperate hunt to twist vague criticisms and private exchanges into something they could punish. And what did they come up with?

That the staff member had voiced concerns about the RSG’s policies. That he’d shared frustrations in a private chat. That he criticized senior officials in encrypted messages outside of work channels.

That’s it.

Since when is private criticism misconduct? Since when are staff not allowed to have an opinion let alone express it privately?

Is this where we’ve arrived? That under the pretext of “technology,” OIOS can dig through our phones and label frustration as insubordination? Where is the balance of arms?

Because if we flipped the script and pulled the WhatsApp threads of senior UN officials, we know what we’d find. And it wouldn’t survive scrutiny.

Private Discourse is Not Misconduct.

So how does a private discussion group where staff warned about disastrous policy shifts, which were later proven right become a basis for termination? Especially when those warnings were vindicated, and the RSG ended up resigning?

The Tribunal itself noted:

“… a staff member should, at the same time, also be allowed to privately express his or her frustrations concerning a supervisor with a colleague — otherwise, the dissatisfaction risks festering and may further damage an already difficult work relationship.”

Even more pointedly:

“Indeed, it would not have shown integrity to allow the impact of misguided policies to continue. By standing up to the policies that may have cost the United Nations great loss, the Applicant also made a positive contribution to the Organization…his effort to stop the policies would have helped to institute change before the losses to the relevant funds reaped much greater damage to the Organization.”

There it is.

A senior staff member who did exactly what the UN’s own rules compel him to do: stand up, speak up, protect the Organization’s interests, was instead punished for it

Let’s go a step further.

The administration’s response went further than mere retaliation. In the formal allegations, it cited the very provisions of the Staff Regulations and Rules that require staff members to uphold the highest standards of integrity, act in the interests of the Organization, report misconduct, and maintain professional conduct.

Yet, it was precisely in fulfilling these obligations that the staff member found himself targeted. His actions raising legitimate concerns over policies that risked substantial financial harm to the Pension Fund fell squarely within the scope of his duties under the UN Charter and the applicable regulatory framework.

Instead of being recognized as the lawful discharge of a staff member’s obligations, these actions were recharacterized as misconduct. The very norms designed to protect the Organization were used selectively and punitively to silence internal dissent. This represents a fundamental distortion of the regulatory framework’s purpose.

And it gets worse.

Crucial evidence, documents that could have fully exonerated the staff member and his colleagues was intentionally withheld by OIOS and the UN Administration. By Order No. 002 (NY/2025) dated 16 January 2025, the Tribunal ordered the Administration to disclose two OIOS “special review” reports. The staff member had specifically requested production of these documents.

The Administration refused.

The excuse? OIOS’s operational independence.

Let that sit for a moment.

When it suits them, OIOS is above orders from the UN Dispute Tribunal. Above accountability. And above the rights of staff members to a fair defense.

This case is exceptional in that exculpatory evidence, which clearly showed that the staff member and his OIM colleagues were acting in the Organization’s best interest, was actively suppressed. Why? To push a pre-manufactured narrative that the sm’ communications were somehow inappropriate or conspiratorial.

The truth is, the suppressed reports confirmed that the concerns about the benchmark changes were valid. That the losses were real. That the whistleblowers had been right all along.

The refusal to disclose the requested OIOS reports, despite a clear Tribunal order, cannot be dismissed as a procedural irregularity. It reflects a deliberate attempt to shield the Administration from institutional accountability and to preserve a narrative that excludes exculpatory evidence. The suppression of these documents amounts to an obstruction of the Applicant’s right to a fair and transparent adjudication of his claims.

Despite everything, the Administration still claimed the staff member had breached public trust. 

But even here, the Tribunal pushed back hard:

“The Respondent alleges a breach of the public trust…. as professionals, the group including the Applicant had a duty to agitate against policies which they correctly predicted would cost the pension investment fund severe losses.”

This distinction is critical. Expressing dissent in relation to policy decisions that may adversely affect the financial integrity of the Organization does not constitute a breach of trust. On the contrary, it falls squarely within the duties of international civil servants, as articulated in Staff Regulation 1.2, to act with integrity and in the best interests of the Organization. The actions taken by the staff member and his colleagues raising concerns, documenting irregularities, and reporting them through internal channels were consistent with their professional obligations. That these actions resulted in retaliatory measures is indicative of a systemic failure to uphold the protections enshrined in the UN’s internal legal framework.

To make matters worse, the Tribunal noted that the Administration completely ignored the Applicant’s claim that he was a whistleblower. And in doing so, they made the process fundamentally unfair.

“The issue is not whether the outcome would have been different. But the issue is that it is not known whether there would have been a different outcome had the Applicant’s assertion of being a ‘whistleblower’ and the group’s complaint been handled in an objective and professional way which afforded an assessment of the basis of the complaint rather than dismissing it without even a comment.”

Read that again.

The Administration didn’t even acknowledge the whistleblower claim. They didn’t review it. Didn’t assess it. Didn’t comment on it.

They just dismissed it.

And where was the Ethics Office? You guessed it: Nowhere.

The Tribunal is silent on that, but we all know the drill by now. I call it the classic UN retaliation loop. Let me spell it out:

---

Staff member: Hello, I would like to request protection against retaliation.
Ethics Office: Please fill out the protection form. We’ll review it in 45 days and please do consult with OSLA.
Staff member: Ok, thank you.
SM to OSLA: Hello, I want to record a conversation with the USG. He threatened me.
OSLA: You don’t have the right to do that. That evidence is inadmissible in the Court.
Ethics Office to SM: Your case is weak. Do you have any proof of the threats?
SM: No. OSLA told me I wasn’t allowed to record the meeting.
Ethics Office: Oh. Well… have you tried the Ombudsman?
SM to Ombudsman: Hello, I need urgent help with retaliation.
Ombudsman: Be patient. I can’t take executive action. I can only offer recommendations.

SM to Secretary-General: Your Excellency, I’m suffering retaliation because I reported misconduct.
Secretary-General to SM: Dear colleague, I’m currently on mission. Please contact the Ethics Office.

That’s the system. That’s the loop. And that’s why it keeps happening.