Author: Nadine Kaddoura

Nadine Kaddoura is a fierce advocate of justice, accountability, and transparency in the United Nations. Read more, be inquisitive, and demand answers.

How Can You Trust UN80 When Senior UN Leaders Are Dismantling Justice?

While Everyone’s Watching UN Budget Cuts, Two USGs Are Acting With Total Impunity and No One’s Paying Attention

As all eyes at the United Nations remain glued to budget slashes and the highly publicized UN80 staffing and structure review, two Under-Secretary-Generals (USGs) are quietly bulldozing every rule, principle, and safeguard that underpins international civil service and getting away with it.

At the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a recent UNAT order (Order No. 2024-591) pulls back the curtain on a shocking abuse of authority by the newly appointed Secretary-General of ISA.

On 1 January 2025, she opened her term with a promising inaugural statement:

“We stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us, leaders who have made the ISA into the steadfast institution it is today… In my first 100 days, I will focus on listening and learning.”

Listening was the last thing she did. Within days, ISA’s new Secretary-General tore through UN rules, trampled institutional safeguards, and made it clear that accountability had no place in her administration.

Six staff members (a mix of P-3s, P-4s, a D-1, and a D-2) who had signed official letters of appointment in December 2024, set to begin their roles on 1 January 2025 under fixed-term two-year contracts, saw their contracts immediately terminated.   Make no mistake about it. The staff had already assumed duties and were behind their desks for a few days when the letters arrived. They were dismissed within the first week of the new USG taking office on the 1st of January 2025.

Yes, you read that right.

On 2 January, the new Secretary-General issued letters to all six informing them that ISA would be “unable to complete the onboarding processes” of their appointments. To paper over what amounts to a breach of contract and a violation of established norms of administrative justice, the Administration offered a legally meaningless promise: that the terminated staff would be ‘automatically shortlisted’ for future vacancies: a statement devoid of enforceability, accountability, or fairness.

This was a direct breach of the Organization’s obligations under the UN Charter and Staff Regulations. The unilateral nullification of valid contracts, without process or explanation, stripped staff members of their rights and undermined the core principles of international civil service

The UNAT has repeatedly affirmed that a unilateral withdrawal of a duly accepted offer of appointment, absent cause, due process, or consent, is unlawful and constitutes an abuse of authority (see, e.g., Wang v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2012-UNAT-247; Appellee v. ISA, 2024-UNAT-591). The arbitrary nullification of valid appointments undermines the integrity of the international civil service and violates principles enshrined in Article 101 of the UN Charter

And it gets worse.

When the staff submitted their urgent motions to the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) (ISA’s first-instance tribunal) they surely didn’t expect that, almost in parallel, the new Secretary-General had quietly dismantled the very tribunal tasked with reviewing her conduct.

Within days of assuming office and just as the challenges to her decisions were being filed, she eliminated the JAB altogether, preemptively blocking any legal scrutiny and effectively erasing the very mechanism meant to review her actions. With their claims still pending, the tribunal vanished leaving them with no legal avenue and no institutional safeguard.

Let that sink in: The ISA Secretary-General responded to a legal challenge against her administration by dismantling the very body that would adjudicate it.

By 7 January, the JAB had become non-functional, its mandate suspended, its duty abandoned. And just like that, while six staff members waited for legal redress, the institution shut the courtroom doors on them and tossed the keys.

Meanwhile, ISA’s Secretary-General moved quickly to fill the very positions she had just vacated, undermining any possibility of reinstatement and preempting the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings. This calculated move frustrated the administration of justice and violated the principle of reinstatement, denying affected staff the chance to be restored to their rightful posts.

But she wasn’t finished.

Five weeks after dismantling the JAB, she appointed a new JAB chair: Martha Halfeld, a former UNAT judge, and notably, a fellow Brazilian. Conflict of interest? Perception of impartiality? 

Apparently none of that matters when you’re building an accountability-free regime.

One of the six dismissed staff members, the former Chief of Staff at D-1 level, filed a separate motion (Order No. 2024-592 (Bourrel), exposing an even darker dimension.

The motion exposed a deeply alarming act by the Administration: under the direct authority of the new Secretary-General, ISA ordered the abrupt disconnection of the Chief of Staff’s home security system in Jamaica, without notice while she and her daughter were still living there. The former Chief of Staff describes discovering that ISA had instructed the private security company to visit her home and disable the system.  As described in her sworn affidavit and the UNAT order, she stated the measure was “designed purely to harm and cause distress, and represented an assault on an international civil servant’s duty of care”.

And while this chaos unfolded, the ISA Secretary-General stood before the Thirtieth Session of the Council on 17 March 2025 and delivered this gem of a statement:

“I have taken steps to improve internal communication and introduced measures conducive to a more positive and supportive work environment… [including] strengthened internal justice mechanisms to uphold institutional accountability… Member States can be assured that all actions taken have fully complied with institutional procedures… and have been executed with due process and transparency.“

But the UN Appeals Tribunal saw through the façade. In direct contradiction to her narrative of transparency and strengthened justice, UNAT laid bare the truth:

“However, I note with concern that the JAB was dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration… denying the staff members access to justice in the interim… the temporary void rendered meaningless the JAB suspension of action mechanism.“

So much for strengthened justice mechanisms. The ISA Secretary-General was publicly promising accountability while privately dismantling the only tribunal capable of holding her accountable

Just last week, UNAT issued another order on a related case, showing how the administration had rushed to fill one of the terminated positions ensuring the claimant couldn’t be reinstated. A textbook move to obstruct justice before it could take its course.

But this story of abuse and concealment doesn’t end at the ISA. It circles back to New York right into the office of another USG who has just made headlines for all the wrong reasons. (For full background, please see my earlier articles on Certioraris and LinkedIn detailing the Hosali case and the disturbing patterns it reveals inside UN senior leadership)

In Judgment No. 2025-UNAT-1523, the UN Appeals Tribunal found entirely in favor of Ms. Mita Hosali, reversing the flawed ruling of the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT). The judgment goes far beyond confirming procedural violations: it reveals a sustained pattern of bias, racial discrimination, and manipulation of the selection process by the USG for Global Communications, in clear breach of the principles of impartiality, equity, and fair competition that underpin international administrative law.

Ms. Hosali, a long-serving woman of color from the Global South, had competed for a D-2 position. The USG leading the panel manipulated the process to favor an external white male candidate, even going as far as to frame Hosali’s years of internal UN experience as a liability.

The USG chairing the interview panel recorded the following in the competency-based interview report:


“Recycling people in UN is problematic. Sometimes needs external.“

Recycling?? Since when did internal UN staff become disposable waste?? And this coming from the very person tasked with managing the UN’s global communications strategy??

Another gem from the interview evaluation sheets:

“Sucking up”

That’s how the panel interpreted Ms. Hosali’s mention of the USG’s strategy during the interview. A comment UNAT rightly flagged as deeply subjective, speculative, and entirely inappropriate.

The tribunal found interalia, that:

“The Panel made a subjective assessment based on personal opinions rather than objective factors… comments that contrast with the Panel’s assessment of the Selected Candidate that he was objective and beyond reproach.”

So a male Brit is “objective,” while an experienced woman of color is “recycled” and “sucking up.” How’s that for an equal playing field?

UNAT also flagged the lack of justification for the selection, noting:

“This Tribunal expresses its serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of the reasons supporting the choice… It is questionable how the Selected Candidate’s gender as male was considered a positive element in a department where males were more represented than females…”

Let’s be clear: the UNAT judgment is final and binding. So here’s the real question: what happens next?

How will the Secretary-General of the United Nations hold the USG for Global Communications accountable for the blatant discrimination and abuse of authority now officially confirmed in this ruling?

More to the point: how are we, as staff and observers, expected to trust the integrity of the new 14-member UN80 task force, the very team now reviewing staffing structures, post reductions, and potential job relocations when two USGs are behaving with unchecked impunity?

If you can dismantle a tribunal to avoid legal scrutiny in Kingston, and label experienced women of color as “recycled” in New York, then what does that say about the culture of impunity at the very top of the UN system?

You can’t restructure a broken system using the very hands that broke it.

700 Killed, 560 Silenced: UNRWA, the UN Agency That Punishes Its Dead

One year ago, I published two articles exposing the deeply entrenched discrimination by UNRWA’s senior management against its Palestinian staff. Today, new and disturbing developments have emerged: ones that point not only to continued injustice but to an alarming pattern of decisions by the Commissioner-General and Western White Leadership within UNRWA that appear to serve the interests of the Israeli government and its lobbies at the direct expense of UNRWA Palestinian staff.

The ultimate trajectory?

The dismantling of UNRWA itself, particularly in Gaza.

Before revisiting the longstanding denial of rights to UNRWA Palestinian staff, it is essential to unpack the latest evidence.

UNAT Tribunal Slams UNRWA’s Abusive Use of “Neutrality” to Silence Palestinian Staff

A United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) judgment issued yesterday has delivered a stark and critical blow to UNRWA’s interpretation and enforcement of its so-called neutrality framework. In plain terms: UNRWA’s senior management, largely composed of Western officials, has been using this framework unlawfully to persecute its own Palestinian staff, often under the pretext of “anti-Semitism.” The judgment exposes the illegality and disproportionate severity of disciplinary measures imposed on Palestinian staff in ways that are unprecedented across the UN system.

This ruling shines a spotlight on the extreme and frankly, obsessive approach UNRWA has taken, positioning itself as one of the only UN agencies willing to weaponize neutrality as a tool of suppression. And the motivation? To appease the Israeli government and its lobbying networks.

The UNRWA Apartheid: Salaries for the West, Silence for Gaza

Equally disturbing is the Commissioner-General’s recent decision to suspend the pay of more than 560 Gaza staff and their families, while continuing to pay international (primarily Western) staff, even those hired under short-term surge contracts. In March 2025, Palestinian staff who had self-evacuated outside Gaza for survival were threatened with either returning to a warzone or being placed on “exceptional leave without pay.”

Less than a week ago, the Commissioner General enacted his threat and suspended the pay of some 560 Gazan staff and their families. The affected staff and their families, already displaced, were suddenly left without income or support.

This is not a logistical issue but rather a policy of abandonment. No Gaza staff member can return to the Strip today, even if they wished to. Yet UNRWA’s top leadership is punishing them for fleeing a warzone by cutting off their livelihoods.

Contrast this with the treatment of international staff: those who were evacuated were immediately offered remote working arrangements under the Alternate Working Arrangements (AWA) policy. They continue to receive full pay and benefits, working comfortably from their home countries and surrounded by the warmth of their immediate families. Even temporary international “surge staff,” recruited using the Gaza Emergency Flash Appeal funds to work inside Gaza, were not let go after evacuation: they, too, were shockingly placed on remote work and continue to be paid handsomely.

How is it legally and morally justifiable to offer full pay and protection to temporary international staff, brought in only to support Gaza operations, while denying the same to 560 Palestinian core staff whose work and knowledge sustain UNRWA’s education and relief operations?

Many of the suspended Gaza staff were educators who had developed alternative methods to continue basic education amid the conflict. Yet rather than support their efforts, the Commissioner-General is enacting policies that align more closely with the stated goals of the Israeli government: the dismantling of UNRWA and its mandate.

Publicly, the Commissioner-General says otherwise. But as we all know, in human rights, it is not the statements but the actions that define the truth.

Diplomats Get D-1 Contracts. Gazans Get Graves. UNRWA’s Moral Ledge

Despite receiving millions under the Emergency Flash Appeal for Gaza, the Commissioner-General is diverting funds away from Palestinian staff and toward bolstering UNRWA’s alleged diplomatic presence. Just today, UNRWA announced it is recruiting of “top-notch representatives” (yes you read that correctly…) for New York and Geneva at the D-1 level: positions that serve Western advocacy goals rather than Palestinian survival.

Why does UNRWA need more Western directors stationed far from the frontlines, getting paid huge salaries from the Gaza Flash Appeal (money that was destined for the Palestinians and not the Westerners) when its Gaza operations are collapsing and its staff are being systematically killed and buried under the rubbles?

Speaking of money and funding, a timely reminder.

Let us now return to what UNRWA owes to its Palestinian staff in Gaza.

As previously documented, UNRWA has systematically excluded its Palestinian staff from coverage under two key UN policies that are universally applied to other UN staff in conflict zones:

  1. Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP),  which provides compensation for death and permanent disability due to acts of war.
  2. Security Evacuation and Entitlements Policies,  which ensure that local staff are treated with parity during crises.

Despite being fully eligible under both, UNRWA’s Palestinian staff have been denied access to these protections for years. Why? Mainly because they are Palestinians, they don’t know their rights, and it comes with a significant cost to UNRWA.

At the time of my earlier reporting, 103 UNRWA staff had been killed by Israel.

Today, that number is estimated to exceed 700.

700 UNRWA humanitarian workers performing their duties under the United Nations Flag.

Yet UNRWA has refused to release an official death count, let alone compensate the families. Each family is entitled to approximately $120,000 in compensation: an essential lifeline under MAIP. Not one of these families has received a cent.

Instead, the Emergency Appeal funds are being used to finance the recruitment of international staff who are now sitting comfortably abroad under AWA status. At the same time, 560 Gazan families are left destitute.

What may be the most disturbing aspect of all: Gazan families have stopped reporting the deaths of their UNRWA-employed relatives. Why? Because they have discovered that once UNRWA is notified of a staff member’s death, their salary is immediately terminated, thereby cutting off the last thread of support for their surviving family.

UNRWA is punishing the families of the dead.

Let that sink in.

A few days ago, at the UNHQ’s noon briefing in New York, a journalist asked the following  question to the Secretary-General’s spokesperson

“Question:  what about UN staffers inside Gaza?  I mean, those Palestinian UN staffers?  What’s the situation for them now?  Are they have the same situation with other Gazan people?

Spokesman:  I mean, our Palestinian colleagues who work for the United Nations — most of them work for UNRWA — are doing two things.  They’re continuing to work to help civilians in Gaza.  And they’re also like the people they’re trying to help, just trying to survive.  They’re facing the same challenges as the rest of the population, while trying to work and maintain operations with the dwindling stocks that we have.”

But no mention was made of the 700 UNRWA staff killed. No mention was made of the UNRWA Palestinian families left without income or support. No commitment was made to compensate the dead. No acknowledgment of the systemic discrimination was uttered.

Instead, UNRWA continues to present a façade of solidarity with Palestinians, while actively undermining them from within.

Western staff are recruited, promoted, and protected.

Palestinian staff are suspended, unpaid, and buried.

This structural discrimination and racism from within UNRWA’s top leadership is enabling a system where Westerners are paid to advocate for the very people they are simultaneously disenfranchising. It is funneling donor money into Geneva offices and diplomatic posts instead of to the bereaved and the displaced. And it is doing all of this while flying the flag of neutrality.

What is clearly impossible to ignore right now is that UNRWA’s senior Westen led management is complicit in the structural dismantling of its own mandate by elevating Western political optics over Palestinian human lives.

You cannot claim to protect when your policies kill.

You cannot claim justice while burying your own staff.

There is no policy framework in the world that can excuse the abandonment of 700 of your own.

The UN vs. the Global South Woman: What the Hosali UNAT Judgment Reveals About Institutionalized Discrimination

Three months ago, I wrote about an important UN Dispute Tribunal case: Hosali vs. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/017), which powerfully exposed the gap between the UN’s public commitments to gender parity and geographical diversity, and its actual recruitment practices. The case centered on Mita Hosali, an Indian national and longtime UN staff member with over 40 years of service, who was passed over for a D-2 Director role in favor of a British male external candidate with no prior UN experience.

Her profile checked every box the Organization claims to value: institutional knowledge, leadership experience, and the perspective of a woman from the Global South. Yet none of that mattered.

Despite overwhelming evidence of systemic bias: 100% of senior hires in the department were from the Western European and Others Group (WEOG), and 67% were male; the Administration sidestepped the gender parity provisions (ST/AI/2020/5) by exploiting technical loopholes. The Tribunal acknowledged many of these troubling patterns; yet still dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

Hosali appealed to UNAT.

The rate of winning at UNAT for selection and recruitment cases is extremely low, almost non-existent. That is because in recruitment, there is a presumption of regularity, and this presumption is satisfied if the Administration can minimally show that the staff member’s candidature was given full and fair consideration.

Two weeks ago, UNAT made an oral pronouncement on the outcome of the 2025 spring session.

Hosali won.

The judgment is not yet out, but what transpired from this summary outcome is shocking, to say the least.

First, the UNAT alluded to its serious concerns about the Administration’s attempt to manipulate the definition and scope of ST/AI/2020/5 (Temporary Special Measures for Gender Parity), the same ST/AI that the Administration proudly promulgated a few years ago to enforce the Secretary-General’s 2018 System-Wide Gender Parity Strategy under a set of temporary provisional measures that would, in principle, help achieve gender parity levels at P-5 and above.

An ST/AI that the legislators themselves violate when it suits them, distorting its interpretation, even though its scope is not subject to any interpretation and clearly states:

Scope: “The temporary special measures contained in the present instruction shall apply to selections and appointments at each level at which gender parity has not been reached within the entity. The temporary special measures shall apply at all times when there is no such parity.”

Reneging on their own rules, their own laws.

Aside from this intentional subversion of the legal framework enshrined in the ST/AI, UNAT found:

“The UNDT erred in not addressing Hosali’s concerns that the Administration failed to give appropriate regard to issues of gender and geographic representation. UNAT agrees. Based on the available record provided, the Administration erred in multiple respects resulting in unfair treatment of Ms. Hosali. Ms. Hosali’s internal UN experience seemed to disadvantage her, even though this was a desirable criterion in the vacancy announcement, and her rights to fullest regard under Staff Regulation 4.4.”

Further, the competency-based interview (CBI) panel appraised the selected candidate’s gender and nationality seemingly as a positive element, but the record reflects no similar consideration for Ms. Hosali.

The CBI panel also made problematic, negative, and subjective comments about Ms. Hosali during the interview process.

UNAT concluded that Hosali was not afforded full and fair consideration during the process. UNDT erred when it held that the Administration fulfilled its obligation of minimal consideration.”

The most damning summary finding from this oral outcome was that the CBI panel also made “problematic, negative, and subjective” comments about Ms. Hosali during the interview process.

Problematic, negative, and subjective all point to abuse and discrimination, noting that that Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications was heading that panel. To conclude with such a finding points to the likelihood that UNAT requested the “production of evidence’ notably the evaluation sheets of the CBI panel.

This also begs the question: why was Hosali even recommended if such negative comments were made about her?

But the answer is quite simple.

Hosali is from the Global South and has an impressive 40 years of experience in the UN, in the Department of Global Communications. The externally selected candidate not only was white but also had zero years of experience in the UN.

Recommending Hosali, in the USG’s distorted logic, was a strategy to diffuse prospective appeals from internal candidates. But the strategy failed and the nepotism and corruption of senior officials was exposed.

Now consider this: unlike termination cases, compensation for appeals against unlawful recruitment cases, if upheld, is almost always minimal. In the case of Hosali, UNAT applied the regular compensation for the difference between D-1 and D-2 levels. Given her experience, Hosali is at the top of the step range at D-1, so in essence, she currently earns more than if selected at D-2 Step 1.

With 40 years of experience and approaching retirement age, Hosali did not appeal for financial gain, but rather as a matter of principle.

A principle that we would like the Secretary-General to answer and to hold accountable his USG for Global Communications.

A few weeks before the UNAT issued its decision, the Secretary-General made a discerning statement on the eve of International Women’s Day, stressing that gender equality was not just about fairness:

“It is about power—who gets a seat at the table, and who is locked out,” Guterres said. “It is about dismantling systems that allow inequalities to fester.”

Curiously, the very individuals enabling these entrenched inequalities are your own Under-Secretaries-General; and yet, as Secretary-General, you have failed to hold any of them accountable.

You speak of dismantling systems.

Perhaps the place to begin is not with rhetorical declarations on commemorative days, but with the dismantling of your own gender parity and inclusion frameworks, which, when measured against the facts of this case, amount to little more than aspirational platitudes and institutional window dressing.

How is it possible that a USG can violate, with impunity, every operative clause of an Administrative Instruction (ST/AI/2020/5) designed to enforce gender parity, in order to favor an external, male candidate from an already overrepresented regional group?

What does a legal victory mean when the outcome delivers only nominal compensation to a woman who was demonstrably wronged after four decades of loyal service? Does the Administration believe it can pay a pittance and bury the matter in footnotes?

What is now undeniable is the extent to which the UN Secretariat is willing to openly and unapologetically breach its own legal instruments in full public view, without any consequence.

And what of the UN’s new Anti-Racism Office? What is its mandate, if not to prevent precisely this kind of institutionalized subversion of normative safeguards? Is it a protective mechanism or simply another symbolic entity, designed to reassure Member States while structural discrimination continues unchallenged?

You call for dismantling systems.

But perhaps it is time to dismantle the performative policies on gender parity, disability inclusion, and racial equity against which the Organization routinely solicits funding, while internally violating every substantive obligation they purport to uphold.

Watch this space.

The judgment, when issued will not only be consequential. It will be damning

This is also a call to UNAT: be bold. The credibility of the sysyetm of administration of justice rests on your willingness to name the actors, to quote directly from the record, and to deliver a ruling that does not dilute the findings, conceal the facts, or shield senior officials from accountability.

Anything less will be a disservice to justice and to the staff members who continue to place faith in the very system that failed Ms. Hosali.

Coercion in the Name of Justice: OSLA’s Troubling Transformation

OSLA, the UN Office of Staff Legal Assistance, once a champion for staff rights, has transformed into an instrument of the administration. Today, it does not just fail to protect UN employees, it unfortunately actively pressures them into unethical agreements that strip them of their rights. Staff members facing disciplinary actions are coerced into signing ‘Letters of Undertaking,’ agreements (so called “agreed sanctions”) designed to silence them and prevent future legal action. How did we get here? The answer lies in OSLA’s troubling evolution over the years.

For a long time, up until 2010, UN staff did not have any real professional staff unit to assist with their grievances and appeals. OSLA’s predecessor, the Panel of Counsel, existed but its support was extremely limited and not truly independent.

In 2008, recognizing the huge disparity in legal weight between the ruthless legal machinery of the Secretary-General defending the administration and the often isolated and sinking UN staff, the General Assembly approved Resolution 63/253 on 24 December 2008 to establish the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA). Its mandate was to provide legal advice and representation to approximately 75,000 staff (and former staff) worldwide.

Established as part of the reform of the internal justice system of the United Nations, OSLA also provides assistance with, and formal representation in, cases before the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals. In a way, OSLA was created to support the lonely staff member who suddenly finds themselves lost in the myriad of rules, deadlines, processes, and forms to fill. That used to be the case, but not anymore.

Don’t get me wrong. I am an avid supporter of OSLA and am thankful for their work. But something has been shifting in both their undeclared policies and modus operandi over the years, and it is not good.

Two Minor Observations on the Form:

First, just like the Panel of Counsel, OSLA staff are still UN employees, so no matter how hard one tries to dissociate them from the administration, a conflict of interest persists. Although the Secretary-General reiterates the independence of OSLA, true independence is unattainable unless OSLA’s lawyers are external professionals and not UN staff, and unless its funding is entirely separate from the UN payroll. After all, many of these lawyers later apply for positions on the other side: the administration, so they have every incentive not to create hostility with it.

Second, the budget: for years now, OSLA has been staffed with a maximum of 15 professional lawyers who are supposed to assist a workforce of approximately 75,000 staff.

Yes, you read that correctly.

That means there is one OSLA lawyer for every 5,000 staff members.

This is a shockingly inadequate ratio by any measure.

OSLA has also relied on the Voluntary Supplemental Funding Mechanism, through which staff members could contribute additional resources via a small monthly payroll deduction amounting to 0.05% of net base salary. This mechanism has proven worthless, with staff members dissatisfied with OSLA’s services withdrawing from it altogether.

The Highly Ubiquitous New Modus Operandi of OSLA

Now, we turn to two highly suspicious developments:

1. The Pre-Review Filter:

OSLA has introduced a pre-review process to decide whether or not they will represent a staff member. If they determine that a case has a low probability of success at the UNDT or UNAT, they refuse to represent the staff member.

What does this mean for the staff member? They are left alone, forced to quickly learn and understand on their own the intricate rules and deadlines governing the appeals process. They must draft their own legal submissions, including references to established jurisprudence, and understand the process of remedies; all while most likely battling an isolating and hostile work environment. Many of these staff are appealing reassignment or termination decisions resulting from years of harassment or abuse of authority. Enduring harassment and abuse is already extremely difficult and draining, often leading to mental health issues.

So what happens when the only entity supposedly created by the Secretary-General to support staff in legal battles against the administration simply abandons them? What happens when the staff member, for example, is a GS-4 with absolutely no knowledge or expertise in the legal system? Recently, I witnessed a P-4 staff member rejected by OSLA, forced to navigate the intricate appeals system alone, at great cost to both their mental health and sanity.

Where in the General Assembly resolution is it stated that OSLA will only defend cases that have a high probability of success at the Tribunals? Is this not a newly fabricated system designed to discourage staff from appealing? When OSLA issues a negative assessment, many staff members give up altogether on the idea of appealing because they believe OSLA’s assessment cannot be overturned. But this is far from true. Many staff who have defied OSLA’s logic went on to win at both Tribunals.

The truth is that no one knows for sure how the Tribunals will assess and rule on the validity of the Secretary-General’s discretionary authority. Each case is distinct, bringing its own witnesses and evidence. Many cases have turned around at the last minute during cross-examination, when judges were able to detect the lies and dishonesty of certain witnesses.

We understand perfectly well that OSLA is understaffed, but instead of funding it properly to allow for a reasonable ratio of representation, the Secretary-General turns a blind eye. OSLA, in turn, self-accommodated by introducing this pre-requisite that abandons the very staff they were meant to assist.

2. Agreed Sanctions or Forced Surrenders? OSLA’s Troubling Role

Even more concerning is OSLA’s active role in negotiating on behalf of the Secretary-General an agreed sanction, or what they call a Letter of Undertaking. This is a highly suspicious and unethical practice, in which a staff member is coerced into signing an agreement with management under duress, while the UN pretends it was voluntary.

Let’s hear it directly from the staff: below are some of the chilling extracts of negotiations between different OSLA lawyers and the accused staff regarding an agreed sanction and the kind of pressure applied on them:

“I need your final decision immediately: you either accept the terms or reject them. Be aware that there is pushback within the Administration regarding any negotiated sanction, and if I bring this back to them, discussions will collapse entirely.”

“I must emphasize that this is the final offer. You either take it or leave it. There will be no further adjustments or discussions. This the best that I could get. From what I understand, there was considerable reluctance within the Administration to even allow this agreement.”

“If you do not give me a definitive response by the end of today, this entire negotiation will fall apart. There will be no further chances to amend the terms. This is the Administration’s final stance, and I need your answer now.”

Is this what OSLA was established for? To support administration in negotiating a disciplinary sanction and threatening and coercing staff into signing an unethical Letter of Undertaking?

Now, let’s have a look at what OSLA assists administration in securing. The infamous template of the “Letter of Undertaking”, which essentially crucifies the staff member and ensures that the risk of them going after their perpetrators is eliminated. By negotiating this Machiavellian Letter of Undertaking on behalf of management, OSLA is effectively playing a support role to the administration.

“I agree:

  1. ….
  2. Not to take any action to bring proceedings before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) or United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) or any other body or court in any jurisdiction with respect to any matters arising out of or related in any way whatsoever to the investigatory or disciplinary processes and/or referred to or described in the Allegations of Misconduct.
  3. To keep this Undertaking and the communications regarding this Undertaking confidential.
  4. Not to make any statements, orally or in writing, or release to any third party, any document or statement which in any way refer to actions, inactions, statements or conduct of any kind by me and/or the United Nations in connection with this Undertaking or the underlying matter.
  5. Not to seek or obtain employment with the United Nations or any other organization which is a part of the United Nations System Chief Executive Board.
  6. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have voluntarily signed, of my own free will without any duress and after having obtained the advice of legal counsel, this Undertaking on the date indicated below.

Of course, the best part remains the signing off “of my own free will and without any duress.”

This so-called “agreement” is nothing more than a forced surrender. A staff member facing a powerful administration, with no legal support, is left with no real choice but to sign. The very existence of this document contradicts the principles of fairness and justice that the UN claims to uphold. No contract signed under coercion should be considered legitimate, and no legal entity acting in good faith should facilitate such unethical practices.

OSLA was created to defend staff, not to act as an extension of the administration’s disciplinary arm. If OSLA’s main problem is understaffing, then the solution should be adequate funding and resources and not abandoning staff who need their help the most, nor coercing them into unethical agreements.

The UN cannot claim to have a credible internal justice system when its very legal support office filters out cases based on their likelihood of successandpressures staff into waiving their rights. The role of OSLA was never meant to be about minimizing cases against the administration: it was meant to be about justice.

OSLA stands at a crossroads: it can reclaim its original purpose as a defender of staff rights, or it can continue its descent into an arm of the administration, eroding the last shred of faith in the UN’s internal justice system. If the problem is understaffing, then let the solution be more resources instead of a betrayal of the very people OSLA was meant to protect.

OSLA must also remember its original mandate. It was created to assist staff, not to abandon them, not to pressure them, and certainly not to turn against them.

OSLA must recommit to its duty: to stand with staff, to advocate for justice, and to refuse to become a tool of administrative convenience.

The UN’s Silent Workforce: Non-Staff Personnel

In the corridors of United Nations offices worldwide, a large but often invisible workforce sustains the organization’s daily operations. These are the non-staff personnel: consultants, contractors, daily paid, UNVs, interns and other non-staff individuals whose numbers account for nearly half of the UN’s total workforce. 

By design, their contracts offer the UN flexibility and cost-efficiency, particularly under the constraints of unpredictable funding. However, this model has come at a severe cost to fairness, labor rights, and organizational integrity.

For many, these contracts do not signify temporary or project-specific employment but rather a precarious, long-term engagement devoid of the protections afforded to staff. They perform roles that mirror those of regular staff, often for years on end, without access to basic benefits like leave, medical care, or even secure housing in hardship duty stations. These disparities challenge the ethics of such employment practices and the sustainability of the UN’s reliance on non-staff personnel.

The lack of duty of care towards non-staff personnel exacerbates these challenges. Non-staff personnel, particularly those working in hardship or emergency duty stations, face heightened risks without access to essential support systems. 

Unlike staff members, they are often denied security measures, leave entitlements, or access to medical evacuation during crises. Mental health suffers as a consequence. Many non-staff personnel endure prolonged stress due to job insecurity and the pressures of performing critical roles under precarious conditions. The lack of mental health resources and welfare programs for non-staff workers highlights a serious gap in the UN’s labor practices.

I was recently informed of cases involving consultants in the art sphere, many of whom are young, aspiring artists initially recruited by the UN under formal consultant contracts. However, the UN failed to honor many of these contracts, leaving them unpaid and subsequently pressuring them to continue working for free under the guise of career development. Those who objected often faced blacklisting and now find themselves fighting alone with no access to legal channels to challenge these unfair labor practices. This exploitation has left many non-staff personnel feeling drained and disillusioned.

Despite calls for reform and periodic reviews by oversight bodies, particularly the latest the 2023 Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report (Review of the use of non-staff personnel and related contractual modalities in the United Nations system organizations), and reports from the UN Ombudsman, nothing has changed.

Inertia persists.

The UN organizations often acknowledge the risks—both reputational and operational—of misusing non-staff contracts, but shortly afterward, business proceeds as usual. Policies are either inconsistently applied or blatantly circumvented, leaving individuals feeling frustrated and undervalued.

The Drivers Behind Non-Staff Contracts: Flexibility, Cost, and Funding Uncertainty

According to the JIU, three primary factors explain the increasing reliance on non-staff personnel: operational flexibility, cost-efficiency, and the unpredictability of funding. These contracts allow UN agencies to quickly scale their workforce in response to emergencies, shifting needs, and short-term projects. Unlike permanent staff contracts, which require lengthy recruitment and come with extensive benefits, non-staff contracts are administratively simpler and cheaper.

However, this flexibility has created a two-tier workforce. Non-staff personnel often work in roles indistinguishable from those of regular staff but with far fewer rights. In many cases, they are excluded from social protections such as retirement benefits, healthcare, and parental leave. In hardship duty stations, this disparity is even starker. Non-staff personnel lack access to secure housing and medical evacuation, even in crisis situations where staff receive these protections.

Organizations also cite funding volatility as a reason for their dependence on non-staff personnel. Many UN agencies rely heavily on extrabudgetary funding, which donors earmark for specific projects. This funding model discourages long-term staffing commitments, leading to the proliferation of temporary contracts. As a result, non-staff personnel have become an essential yet vulnerable segment of the UN workforce.

The Consequences of Misuse: High Turnover, Poor Morale, and Legal Risks

The overuse and misuse of non-staff contracts carry significant risks for the UN. High turnover rates, resulting from job insecurity and inadequate benefits, undermine institutional knowledge and organizational effectiveness. Non-staff personnel often feel demoralized, knowing that their contributions are undervalued despite their central role in program delivery.

Moreover, the UN exposes itself to potential legal liabilities by failing to adhere to international labor standards. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has emphasized that any work arrangement that meets the criteria of an employment relationship should be governed by staff contracts. Yet, many UN agencies continue to operate in a legal grey area, using non-staff personnel to perform continuous, core functions without regularizing their status.

Recent inspections have highlighted cases where non-staff personnel were subjected to poor contract management, including late payments and vague terms of reference. These issues exacerbate tensions within the workforce and fuel complaints to oversight bodies such as the Ombudsman and internal justice mechanisms.

The Illusion of Opportunity

For many, the path to a UN career begins with a consultancy contract, seen as a crucial first step towards permanent employment. Yet, this path often turns into a trap, a spiral that engulfs them in cycles of unpaid labor and exploitation. Instead of opportunity, these contracts become barriers, leaving individuals disillusioned and without legal recourse.

The fault does not lie with those who enter through this door but with the system that constructed it. The UN must confront and dismantle these harmful practices if it hopes to uphold the principles of fairness and human dignity it espouses.

Until then, this so-called door to opportunity will remain the wrong door for too many.

Why Is the United Nations Silencing Its Own Human Rights Watchdogs?

Not many people know what a Special Rapporteur actually does. They’re independent experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to report on specific human rights issues. What’s even less known is that these individuals do this critical work without earning a single penny. 

That’s right—they’re not paid for their efforts, whether it’s investigating abuses, issuing reports, sending letters of allegation or urgent appeals to member states or advocating for victims of violations. 

It’s a role that demands independence, impartiality, and often courage, given the sensitive and controversial topics they handle. 

Special Rapporteurs are not traditional UN staff and, therefore, do not fall under the standard UN rules and regulations. Consequently, they are excluded from the UN’s system of administration of justice, leaving them with no legal avenues to appeal administrative decisions. Furthermore, since they are not classified as staff, key policies such as the Secretary-General’s Bulletins and ST/AIs on harassment, abuse of authority, and discrimination do not apply to them.

Here’s the bombshell that no one’s talking about.

Four (non-Western) Special Rapporteurs—the very people entrusted to call out human rights violations—are currently themselves being targeted, harassed and discriminated against. Alarmingly, OHCHR has recently allowed non-governmental interest and lobbying groups, particularly Western ones, to target Special Rapporteurs simply for holding divergent views. These independent experts have also experienced harassment and discrimination by senior officials within OHCHR.

The Human Rights Council, instead of defending its own experts, is now undermining them from within. 

Their so-called ‘offense’? 

Doing their job with integrity, standing firm on their independent positions, and holding governments accountable for their shortcomings on critical human rights issues.

Special Rapporteurs are appointed as independent experts to bring diverse, unbiased perspectives to human rights advocacy. Regardless of their mandates, race or nationalities, OHCHR has no right to harass, bully, or interfere with their work, as doing so undermines the very purpose of their appointments—to provide independent, expert views that may challenge prevailing norms and advocate for human rights with member states.

It’s simply outrageous.

Why appoint these experts if the Council itself can’t handle their independence? 

What does it say about the Human Rights Council when it punishes its own experts?

If the UN allows its own defenders of human rights to be attacked, how can it expect the global public to trust its commitment to justice?

It’s an outright betrayal of everything the Human Rights Council stands for.

The Human Rights Council, OHCHR, and the Secretary-General have an obligation to safeguard the independence and reputation of Special Rapporteurs. While it’s true that Special Rapporteurs don’t report to the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights does. 

Together with the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner has a moral duty to ensure that Special Rapporteurs are allowed to work independently, even when their stances differ from those of the Council. 

After all, isn’t that why they were appointed in the first place—to provide independent, expert opinions? 

Or is the entire system nothing more than a calculated facade, designed to give the illusion of accountability while silencing those who challenge its status quo? 

If the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner can’t handle differing views, then stop hiding behind this masquerade.

The last thing the UN needs is for the body meant to protect human rights to turn on human rights defenders.

#HumanRights #OHCHR #SpecialRapporteurs #Accountability #HumanRightsCouncil#IndependentExperts #Retaliation
#UNWatchdog #StopHarassment #FreedomOfSpeech

Shielding Misconduct: How OIOS and the SG Weaponize Operational Independence

The United Nations administration wields an overwhelming imbalance of power in appeals launched by staff against the organization. Nowhere is this more apparent than in cases involving the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), where bad faith actions and obstructions often define the process. The Organization typically holds nearly all the evidence relevant to the decisions it makes, while the staff member is left with relatively little, creating a pronounced information power imbalance.

A Lopsided Fight: Staff vs. The UN’s Legal Machinery and OIOS

When tribunals order the administration to produce documents, a good-faith administration with sound and objective decisions would comply promptly. Such transparency is crucial to affirming that the decisions were not motivated by ulterior motives. Refusal to comply with such orders speaks volumes, allowing tribunals to draw negative inferences—an essential judicial tool in these cases.

Yet, staff appeals frequently fail due to an inability to meet evidentiary standards. Without access to key information, staff are left unable to prove irregularities in administrative decisions. This problem is exacerbated when it comes to confidential documents, particularly OIOS reports, to which staff have no access.

Exculpatory Evidence Suppressed: The Case of the Hidden OIOS Reports

A recent tribunal order, 002 (NY/2025) Applicant vs. Secretary-General of the UN, issued on January 16, 2025, exemplifies the extent of OIOS’s bad faith and its role as a protector of administrative misconduct rather than an impartial overseer of justice. This case reveals not only how OIOS fabricates allegations against staff but also how it shields the Secretary-General and his representatives when their decisions are challenged before tribunals.

The case involved an applicant sanctioned in retaliation for denouncing misconduct in the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund Asset Investments. The applicant requested the production of two OIOS reports: the “Special Review/Audit Report” and the “Second Special Review.” According to the applicant, these documents contained positive comments and exculpatory evidence about him and his colleagues, acknowledging their efforts to expose misconduct by the former Representative of the Secretary-General for the Pension Fund. The administration, however, suppressed these reports, withholding critical evidence.

Pension Fund Scandal: Retaliation Against Whistleblowers Dressed as Justice

The order reveals that years earlier, the applicant and his colleagues had reported misconduct by the Representative of the Secretary-General, who proposed shifting $3.32 billion in Pension Fund investments from developed to emerging markets. Staff alleged that the Representative bullied and intimidated them to sell off developed market equities by the end of 2019, regardless of market conditions, instead of following standard practices over a four-year period. Reports indicated that some investments were directed toward the Representative’s home country.

In retaliation for their efforts to safeguard Pension Fund investments, the administration fabricated allegations of misconduct against the applicant. His actions, which should have been protected as whistleblowing, were instead criminalized.

OIOS and the Secretary-General: Weaponizing Independence to Protect Wrongdoers

If OIOS and the administration had nothing to hide and were committed to good governance, they would have readily disclosed the requested reports. Instead, the administration launched a farcical defense, claiming it lacked authority over OIOS due to its “operational independence.”

This claim is laughable to anyone familiar with the UN’s internal dynamics. 

A leaked 2020 audio recording revealed that then-Director of Investigations for OIOS, Ben Swanson, was informed of a senior official sexually assaulting a female Director (D-1). Swanson disclosed that when he reported the incident to the Secretary-General in the presence of senior staff, no one expressed concern, initiated an investigation, or took any action. The Secretary-General’s selective intervention—or lack thereof—undermines any claim of OIOS’s true independence.

Returning to the case at hand, the administration argued that General Assembly provisions established OIOS’s operational independence. This so-called “independence” conveniently allows the administration to withhold exculpatory evidence under the pretext of privilege. According to the administration, disclosing the requested reports would “impede OIOS’s internal oversight functions.” In other words, OIOS and the administration jointly claimed that transparency would compromise oversight—a glaring contradiction.

The tribunal rejected this absurd argument, ordering the administration to produce the OIOS reports. It warned that failure to comply would allow the tribunal to draw negative inferences, as established in prior jurisprudence, such as Zhao, Zhuang, and Xie 2015-UNAT-536.

Judicial Warnings Ignored: Negative Inferences and UNAT Precedents

This ruling recalls the analysis of Judge Graeme Colgan, who criticized the evidentiary standards in UN administrative law:

“The principles at issue include the ‘presumption of regularity’ of administrative decisions; the imposition of an onus of proof resting on an affected staff member of establishing irregularity or other unlawfulness once the Organisation has met a very low threshold of regularity…

The Organisation almost always holds most, if not all, of the information and therefore the evidence relevant to the grounds for its decision. At best, the staff member holds relatively little. The information power imbalance is pronounced.

Yet the jurisprudence expects the staff member to make out a case to a high standard against the Organisation that holds unilaterally the relevant information and may naturally be reluctant to divulge it all. It is little wonder that such cases fail for want of proof.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove what one may be unaware of.”

The Secretary-General, through the administration and OIOS, has consistently exploited this imbalance to suppress information and silence dissent. By withholding critical reports and shielding bad actors, they perpetuate a culture of retaliation and impunity. staff members fighting for justice within the UN must contend with a system designed to protect itself rather than its people.

The applicant’s case is a masterclass in the so-called operational independence of OIOS—a principle the administration clings to when convenient, like a fig leaf shielding their self-serving maneuvers. 

The UN’s Legacy: Protecting the Guilty and Crushing the Innocent.

But let’s not forget the infamous 2020 pocket incident, where the Secretary-General’s “hands-off” approach miraculously transformed into deafening silence when his Assistant Secretary-General quite literally couldn’t keep his hands off a senior woman staffer. It seems operational independence is less about governance and more about selective amnesia when it suits the administration’s narrative. Bravo, UN, for this theatrical display of “justice.”

As it stands, the UN’s machinery serves not to uphold justice but to crush those who dare to challenge its authority.

Neurodivergence and the United Nations: A Test of True Inclusion

“I am not feeling better, not at all. I have high blood pressure and panic attacks, one happened after I saw your message yesterday. I am not sure whether you are aware, but I have long-standing [depression], and recently my doctor doubled my medication because of the nervous breakdown. Nevertheless, even being on sick leave, I worked all the previous week, and today the whole working day…”

In a truly inclusive workplace, this email alone should have triggered a profound sense of duty of care from the staff member’s supervisor. It should have prompted the provision of every possible accommodation to support her recovery. Instead, what the UN did is unforgivable.

Case 1: Aggravating Depression to Disability

A former Human Resources Manager with UNICEF at the P-4 level in Nairobi, Kenya, experienced anxiety, panic attacks, and high blood pressure following a meeting with her supervisor. She was placed on certified sick leave. However, during her leave, her supervisor demanded she complete her performance evaluation report (PER) with a one-day deadline. Despite notifying her supervisor of her poor health, she returned to work, where another meeting caused a nervous breakdown. Her doctor concluded that work-related stress had severely exacerbated her condition.

Seeking justice, she filed a claim with the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for compensation for service-incurred illness. Rather than acknowledging its duty of care, the UN, including the ABCC, actively opposed her claim, employing every tactic to undermine it.

Although the UN claims to set exemplary standards for employers, it ignored its own duty to protect its staff’s well-being. Despite being aware of her mental health condition, the organization delayed her ABCC claim under Appendix D for 22 months. This inaction further worsened her mental health.

In the judgment Gusarova v. Secretary-General UNDT/2023/046, the Tribunal highlighted this delay, stating:

“In sum, it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment… [T]he ABCC unduly delayed the consideration of the Applicant’s claim for compensation, notwithstanding that the delay could aggravate the moral harm suffered.”

The Tribunal further emphasized:

“Duty of care requires the employer to intervene promptly also to assess if a claim may be accepted or not within Appendix D, notably when this delay may impact on the health of the staff member, aggravating their psychological harm.”

Gusarova’ s struggle to receive acknowledgment of her condition and fair treatment underscores the UN’s disregard for mental health as a legitimate aspect of workplace inclusion​.

Inclusion or Illusion? Unpacking the UN’s Diversity Dilemma

The United Nations champions the ideals of diversity and inclusion, presenting itself as a bastion of equity and empathy. Yet, beneath this polished narrative lies a troubling hypocrisy: the failure to embrace and support neurodivergent staff members who face unique challenges due to their mental health or neurological conditions.

When people think of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the conversation often defaults to visible identifiers like race, religion, or gender. While these are critical, an equally important yet often overlooked component of DEI is discrimination based on neurodivergence, mental health, and personality traits. 

These hidden forms of exclusion carry profound human costs. This systemic failure is not abstract; it has real human costs. In addition to the Gusarova case, two more stories illustrate the UN’s failure to uphold its own ideals of inclusion

Case 2: Surviving Brain Tumors, Facing Hostility

A former UNHCR G5 national staff underwent two brain surgeries to remove a life-threatening tumor. After returning to work, he exhibited emotional and behavioral changes, including mood swings—understandable given his ordeal. Instead of supporting him, the organization investigated him, worsening his mental health status, and ultimately terminated him. In what inclusive organization, let alone one like the UN, is this allowed?

The case revolved around whether the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) at UNHCR had a duty to investigate the medical context of his behavior. In Judgment UNDT/2022/132 Applicant v. SG of the UN , the Tribunal documented his struggles:

“[The Applicant] was diagnosed with a serious brain tumor in March 2018 and underwent two brain surgeries on 12 March 2018 and 9 April 2018. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and adjustment disorder, with symptoms including mood swings, irritation, and problematic control of anger. In particular, according to the psychiatric note, the Applicant was referred for further treatment in the summer of 2018 due to “mood swings, irritation and problematic control of anger.

The psychiatric note on record suggests that the Applicant’s medical condition could have caused problems in social or work settings including aggression and loss of social inhibition “before and during the operation” due to the physical and psychological trauma he went through and that “[t]he operation itself might also have some psychological consequences”. 

Despite clear evidence that his medical condition caused behavioral challenges, the UN sanctioned him for those very symptoms, including his post-brain surgery PTSD. In his appeal, the staff member questioned the UN’s treatment of him in a poignant statement:

“[I]t really saddens me at this point and shows how some colleagues may also fail to act inclusive towards a colleague who had suffered a deadly brain disease and survived. This seems to form a big basis of hypocrisy for some colleagues to me. While they claim to work for people of concern, they tend to forget to include the ones at home for whatever motives they might have. … What would a person do when they start work only 8 months after they were operated in their brain two times? Of course, this person would have ventilations, mood swings, frustrations of a kind, etc. Yet, these were not targeting to anyone specifically….”

I’ve been recovering from a brain surgery that I had two times in 2018. And what I’m doing is trying to recover, focus on myself. And I do not think that I have been using curse words … Because I was going through a recovery process, and that’s why I am not recalling if I have used any cursing words, or I increased my voice at all … In fact, I was the silent – I mean, what I wanted to say, that I was very silent, I was very introverted, I was putting my music headset, and I’m sitting in front of my desk and trying to do my work. That’s why I don’t think that I’ve used any cursing words or increased my voice. “

The Tribunal condemned the UN’s failure, stating:

“the failure to consider the Applicant’s mental health issues throughout the investigation and disciplinary proceedings seems to reveal a dereliction of the duty of care towards the Applicant as a staff member of the Organization, because his mental health condition was not properly considered before deciding on the termination of his service as the sanction to be applied to him.” 

Recalling Judgment  Ouriques 2017-UNAT-745 and  Judge Halfeld’s Dissenting Opinion, para. 6) the Judge reminded everyone that 

“the Organization has a duty of care towards its staff members. This duty of care required the Administration … to inquire further into the staff member’s mental health once it was on notice of its possible relevance prior to concluding the disciplinary investigation and to making a final determination vis-a-vis the staff members’ disciplinary sanction. It is not good practice to separate a staff member suffering from a mental health condition without first fully discharging its duty of care”

Although he won the appeal, the staff member was never reinstated.

Case 3: Quiet Quashed: How the UN Weaponized Introversion Against a High Performer

An introverted but high-performing staff member at UNHQ faced relentless harassment because her supervisor deemed her reserved nature a flaw. Despite consistent excellence in her performance evaluations, her supervisor pressured her to change her personality, ultimately including disparaging comments about her “introverted character” in her appraisal. 

This psychological attack escalated into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and she is now pursuing disability benefits due to permanent mental health impairment. 

Since when, we ask, are supervisors allowed to weaponize introversion or neurodivergent traits to downgrade performance evaluations? Is this what inclusion and diversity in the UN are truly about?

Redefining Inclusion: Why Neurodivergence Deserves a Seat at the Table

These cases reveal an organizational culture where diversity is celebrated only when convenient. The UN’s Strategy on Mental Health promises a supportive environment for staff, yet it remains an empty gesture for many. How can an organization profess to support mental health when staff who exhibit neurodivergent traits or struggle with mental health challenges are sidelined, harassed, or punished?

Neurodivergence encompasses a broad spectrum of neurological differences, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. These are not “deficiencies” or “flaws” but rather variations in how individuals perceive, process, and interact with the world. Neurodivergent individuals bring unique perspectives, innovative problem-solving abilities, and critical skills that can enhance any workplace. Respecting neurodivergence means fostering an environment where differences are not just tolerated but celebrated as essential to collective success.

Supervisors and colleagues alike must begin to understand that staff members have the right to say, “I’m not feeling well,” or, “I don’t feel comfortable answering this question,” without fear of judgment or retaliation. Staff should feel safe expressing vulnerability, recognizing that needing support is not a failure—it’s an essential aspect of being human. Anxiety attacks, for example, are not signs of weak leadership; they are signals that an individual is overwhelmed and needs assistance.

The UN and its leadership, including the Secretary-General, have repeatedly pledged to provide this support. It is time to honor those commitments in practice, not just in policy. Supervisors must be trained to respond to such moments with empathy and understanding, creating a workplace culture where staff feel empowered to seek help without the stigma of being perceived as inadequate.

If the UN truly seeks to embody its principles of inclusion and equity, it must do better. It must move beyond empty rhetoric and create tangible, lasting change in how it addresses neurodivergence and mental health challenges in the workplace.

Your Story Matters: Let’s Redefine Inclusion Together

These stories matter because they reflect a deeper systemic issue. If you’ve experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. Let’s demand a workplace that respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible

These stories matter because they reveal a deeper systemic issue that affects not just individuals but the very integrity of the workplace. If you have experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. By sharing your story, you can help shed light on the hidden challenges faced by so many and push for meaningful change.

Let’s come together to demand a workplace that truly respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible. Together, we can advocate for a more inclusive and compassionate environment that honors the UN’s commitment to equity and humanity.

Exposing Racial Discrimination and Gross Incompetence Against African Colleagues in the United Nations

Today, I am sharing a deeply concerning letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The letter highlights systemic failures and racial discrimination exposed in two recent judgments (BANGAMBILA v. SG and KISUMIRO v. SG), involving unethical conduct by a senior OIOS investigator and the inaction of their supervisors.

These judgments reveal:

  • The unjust termination of two African national staff members based on flawed investigations.
  • Gross incompetence and potential conscious bias by OIOS leadership.
  • The failure of the UN’s internal justice system to protect underprivileged staff, leaving them unsupported against systemic misconduct.

Key examples include:

  1. The Bangambila Case: A single mother lost her livelihood due to a lack of basic understanding by the investigator, who failed to grasp the definition of “spouse.” The Tribunal described this as “a clear failure of due diligence at almost every level.”
  2. The Kisumiro Case: A construction worker, ethical and truthful, was exploited because of his limited legal knowledge. OIOS disregarded his straightforward defense, and OSLA refused to represent him.

Only thanks to the courageous and relentless efforts of Sètondji Roland Adjovi and Anthony Wilson, who pursued these cases with unmatched determination, were the affected staff members saved. Their advocacy not only led to groundbreaking decisions to reinstate these individuals but also set a precedent for the UN system to rectify its failures. Without their intervention, these outcomes would not have been possible.

I encourage you to read the letter in full to understand the extent of the failures against these national staff from Congo and the systemic injustice they endured. Share it widely to demand independent investigations, transparency, and accountability within the UN system. Together, we can amplify their voices and call for meaningful reform.

Letter to SG130125Download

Taking Note and Doing Nothing: The UN’s Broken Promises on Racism and Harassment

Why does the United Nations repeatedly fail to address the firmly entrenched issues of racism and harassment within its own ranks? 

Every year, the Ombudsman’s Office sounds the alarm, highlighting systemic failures in the workplace and devastating issues such as racism and harassment in the workplace. Every year, the Secretary-General presents these damning findings to the General Assembly. 

And every year, member states respond with the same meaningless ritual: they “take note” of the report.

What does it take to break this cycle of inaction? And what does this cycle of repetition reveal about the United Nations’ internal accountability mechanisms?

Over four years, these reports have consistently highlighted two systemic issues:

  1. Racism: Persistent, widespread, and damaging to organizational culture and staff well-being.
  2. Systemic Upward Harassment: Particularly targeting senior female leaders, exacerbated by gender discrimination and patriarchal workplace norms.

Yet, despite repeated observations, no significant actions have been taken. In response to this ongoing inaction, on 22 November 2024, the Chair of the Sixth Committee (Legal) sent a letter to the Chair of the Fifth Committee, underscoring the importance of addressing the persistent issues raised in reports submitted by the Secretary-General, specifically the activities of the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (A/79/156).

Digging Into the Reports: A Closer Look at the Evidence

To understand the scale of this failure, we examine the Secretary-General’s reports from 2020 to 2024. Each year, the Ombudsman documented systemic racism and harassment, particularly against senior female leaders. Each year, the same issues resurfaced, unresolved.

2020 (A/75/160): “Upward Harassment” and Racism

The 2020 report noted:

“As the Organization moves towards the goal of gender parity, one negative effect is an increase in upward professional harassment, or mobbing directed at female managers at senior and other levels. A new female manager who is the subject of mobbing does not always find the support needed from senior management… She may have to build a network while negative information about her is being disseminated by those disgruntled at her appointment…she has to address gender discrimination in addition to mobbing.”

On racism, the Secretary-General reaffirmed in a letter that racism “violated the Charter and debased the core values of its community”.

Despite these critical issues being identified, no systemic changes were implemented, and these problems would resurface in future reports.

2021 (A/76/140): Skepticism on Racism

The 2021 report noted staff skepticism about the UN’s ability to address racism.

“The degree of awareness of racism in the workplace spans a wide range, from those who believe it does not exist to those who have experienced it and are highly sceptical as to whether it will ever be addressed in a meaningful way. Continuous learning and education on racism will be necessary to embed an anti-racist awareness and culture in the Organization.”

The persistence of skepticism among staff highlights the UN’s failure to address racism meaningfully, despite acknowledging its presence.

2022 (A/77/151): The Failure to Tackle Intersectional Bias

The Ombudsman 2022 report highlighted how multiple forms of discrimination—gender, race, age, and ableism—intersected to harm staff, particularly women in leadership. Despite a flexible regulatory framework, patriarchal workplace cultures rendered reforms ineffective.

“Racial discrimination may manifest itself in different, often subtle ways, from microaggressions to overt racism. Often, several elements intersect, for instance gender and racial discrimination, perceived age discrimination, and ableism… Even when the regulatory framework might allow for flexibility, it was often not applied by managers and a patriarchal workplace culture persisted.”

“Women, especially those appointed to senior positions, reported that they seemed to be measured by different standards compared with their male counterparts. Several women leaders contacted the Office about the harassment they experienced, ranging from microaggressions to overt aggression.”

2022 marked yet another year of the same issues being observed, with systemic discrimination entrenched and no clear evidence of concrete interventions or changes.

2023 (A/78/170): Racism’s Toll on Mental Health

Staff reported feeling unseen and devalued. Victims of racism sacrificed their mental and physical health to combat systemic issues. 

The 2023 Ombudsman report noted:

“Many United Nations staff feel marginalized, unseen, and not valued. Daily interactions and treatment of personnel are perceived to be misaligned with the aspirational frameworks of the Organization, with a negative impact on organizational culture. Victims of racism have engaged in addressing racism to the detriment of their health.”

Despite the creation of an Anti-Racism Team, the lack of tangible outcomes reflected a continued failure to address the root causes of these issues.

2024 (A/79/156): The Failure of Formal Complaints to Address Racism

Staff continued to report incidents of racism and bias, and the formal complaints process proved inadequate. 

Under Addressing Racial Bias and Discrimination, the 2024 report revealed that racism continued to persist within the organization, despite increased efforts to address it. While more employees have come forward to report incidents, the reliance on formal complaints channels has proven largely ineffective in resolving the issue. The report underscored that addressing bias requires more than formal processes; it necessitates an environment where staff feel safe to raise concerns and challenge discrimination without fear of retaliation. Until such an environment exists, racism will remain a deeply entrenched issue.

The systemic issues identified in the 2020 report were still unresolved four years later.

Why Is the UN Losing the Battle Against Racism and Harassment?

Over four years, the Ombudsman’s reports have exposed a damning reality: a workplace entrenched in systemic racism and harassment. And yet, nothing changes. The question is not whether the issues are clear—they are—but why the United Nations continues to ignore them. The answers are as alarming as the failures themselves:

1. The Secretary-General’s Missed Opportunities

The SG has the authority to act decisively, implementing reforms, holding senior leaders accountable, strengthen the Ombudsman’s mandate, and push member states to prioritize internal justice. 

However, the SG’s failure to act decisively has perpetuated systemic dysfunction, damaged staff morale, and undermined trust in the UN’s commitment to its values. 

Year after year, the SG chooses not to act. Is it fear of disrupting internal power structures? Apathy? Or a belief that these issues are not worth prioritizing?

2. Member States Perpetuating Inertia

Member states also bear significant responsibility for this inertia. Despite funding the Ombudsman’s Office through assessed contributions, they refuse to hold the UN accountable for acting on its findings. Instead, they prioritize budgetary efficiency and avoid politically sensitive discussions about harassment and racism.

Why fund a mechanism that reveals systemic failures if you have no intention of fixing them? By failing to act, member states perpetuate the UN’s inefficiency and undermine its credibility. It becomes a bureaucratic exercise that neither protects staff nor aligns with the organization’s stated values.

3. Bureaucracy as a Shield

The UN’s deeply ingrained bureaucracy enables inaction. Critical findings are buried in processes and paperwork, allowing systemic problems to persist unchecked. Reports are “taken note of”—and promptly ignored.

Burnout and Brain Drain: The Cost of Inaction

The human cost is immense. Talented senior women and minority staff leave in frustration, their careers derailed by harassment and discrimination. Victims of racism suffer in silence or jeopardize their health fighting an unyielding system. Each year of inaction chips away at the UN’s credibility as an institution meant to uphold justice and equality.

The UN cannot keep ignoring these issues without losing whatever credibility it has left. If the Ombudsman’s reports are worth the paper they’re written on, they must lead to real change. Member states need to stop playing bureaucratic hide-and-seek, and the Secretary-General must decide whether leadership is a title or a responsibility.

But let’s be honest—next year, the same report will be submitted, and once again, it will be ‘noted.’

Because if there’s one thing the UN excels at, it’s inaction perfected to an art form. At this rate, we’ll be ‘taking note’ of the same issues for another decade.