Category: Accountability

Certioraris: From Silence to Reform, Independent Advocacy for Justice in the UN

As we approach the end of the year, I want to take a moment to reflect on something that has shaped my work and so many of yours: Certioraris. ✨ This month marks the two-year anniversary since its establishment—two years of supporting, guiding, and amplifying the voices of those who needed it most.

Over these years, I’ve spoken with hundreds of you—UN staff, humanitarian workers, and professionals navigating systems that often lack transparency, fairness, and accountability. Yet, I realize I’ve never taken the time to fully share the story of Certioraris: how it began, what it stands for, and the mission behind its name. 🖊️

What binds us together are the similar stories we share and our enduring belief in the founding principles of the UN Charter. Beyond that, we are united by our suffering—whether it was imposed on us, the result of an unjust supervisor’s actions, or the consequence of a system that shields itself instead of those it is meant to serve. We share so much, but above all, we are united by a single goal: to restore justice and dignity. ⚖️

Certioraris started as one act, but it has grown into something much larger—a collective platform for truth, accountability, and reform. 🕊️ What makes it truly unique is its complete independence: Certioraris does not rely on external funding, allowing it to operate without bias or influence. This independence ensures credibility and allows it to serve those who need it most with integrity and transparency.

If you’ve ever wondered how it began or what drives this mission, I invite you to read below. It’s something a little different, for a change.

Certioraris exists because of you—your stories, your courage, and our shared belief in justice. 🌍⚖️ The work continues, and it’s ours to carry.

When I first founded my blog, I spent a great deal of time thinking about what to call it. I wanted a name that would encapsulate the essence of justice, fairness, and the need to uncover the truth. My personal experience with the United Nations’ administration of justice system guided me to a word that resonated deeply: “certiorari.” But what does certiorari actually mean, and why did I choose it?

“Certiorari: What’s in a Name?

The term “certiorari” originates from Latin, meaning “to be made more certain” or “to be informed.” Historically, it referred to a type of writ developed within the English legal system. In English common law, certiorari was a supervisory writ issued by a superior court, such as the King’s Bench, to an inferior court or tribunal. This writ commanded the lower court to send the records of a particular case for review, ensuring that justice was properly administered and that the lower courts operated within their jurisdiction.

The use of certiorari dates back to at least the 13th century, serving as a royal demand for information and a means to move cases from local courts to the King’s courts. By transferring cases to the King’s courts, the system provided a mechanism to correct local biases, standardize rulings, and reinforce accountability across the justice system. This process was integral in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that decisions were made with fairness and transparency. In practice, certiorari allows a higher judicial body to take a closer look at a case, correcting any errors or injustices that might have occurred and ensuring decisions are grounded in fairness.

For example, in the United States, certiorari is most prominently used by the Supreme Court to review cases from lower courts, often focusing on issues of national importance or cases with conflicting lower court decisions. By contrast, in countries with less developed judicial review systems or those where access to justice is limited, the absence of certiorari-like mechanisms often highlights systemic inequalities. In these regions, individuals face significant barriers to challenging unjust rulings or accessing all relevant information needed to ensure a fair trial. 

The principle of certiorari or being “more fully informed” becomes not just a legal right but a fundamental necessity for upholding justice in environments where transparency and accountability are often lacking.

From a Single Act to Many Voices for Justice

My choice to name the website Certioraris stems from this powerful principle. The pluralized form, “Certioraris,” reflects my belief that the right to be more fully informed and the pursuit of justice is not limited to a single individual or case. It is a collective need—one that resonates with thousands of United Nations staff and others working in the humanitarian aid and development sectors. These individuals often find themselves navigating complex, opaque systems that lack accountability and transparency.

Through my own journey in challenging corruption, retaliation, and the systemic flaws within the UN’s administration of justice, I saw firsthand how difficult it is to fight for one’s rights in the face of institutional resistance.

Certioraris in Action: Amplifying Truth, Driving Reform

Certioraris is a space where I aim to provide clarity, guidance, and support to others facing similar battles. Many staff members lack trust in their internal investigative mechanisms, perceiving them as protective of the institution rather than the victims, and not genuinely committed to establishing justice. 

Through Certioraris, I bring to the public sphere what the General Assembly intended by mandating the publication of these judgments. By widely disseminating these issues, I aim to foster reform and leverage change to end such practices. The General Assembly emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the internal justice system, as reflected in Resolution 63/253, which underscores the need for an efficient and effective system of administration of justice in the United Nations. 

Ironically, in doing so, Certioraris fulfills a role the UN itself was supposed to undertake when it introduced the internal justice system in 2009. The system was intended to ensure that tribunal judgments would serve as best practices, aligning UN policies with the spirit of the rulings to drive incremental reform from within. 

However, no such reforms have materialized. Instead, issues like sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and retaliation have become rampant, while bodies such as the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the Inspector General’s Office (IGO), the Ethics Office, and the Ombudsman have been privatized by the Secretary-General’s office to serve its defense rather than uphold justice. Certioraris represents a vital resource for those seeking justice, offering tangible support and guidance to navigate the complexities of their battles.

Bridging the Gaps in UN Justice

For UN staff, as well as employees of other international organizations, the principles of certiorari hold special meaning. Many face retaliation, harassment, and discrimination without adequate recourse. The internal justice systems of these organizations are often skewed against the very individuals they are meant to protect.

Certioraris is dedicated to helping these individuals understand their rights, navigate the system, and find strength in shared experiences.  This mission aligns with the original meaning of certiorari—to provide a higher level of understanding and ensure that decisions affecting personal and professional lives are made with fairness and transparency.

In the context of the UN, this principle addresses critical gaps in the internal justice system by advocating for transparency and accountability. By highlighting and disseminating tribunal judgments, Certioraris exposes systemic flaws and pressures the organization to align its policies with the spirit of these rulings, fostering the incremental reform that the system was originally intended to achieve. By advocating for this principle, Certioraris becomes a tool for empowerment and a reminder that no one should have to fight these battles alone.

Justice Without Influence: The Power of Independence

What sets Certioraris apart is its complete independence. Unlike many initiatives, it does not rely on external funding. This independence allows it to operate without bias or influence, ensuring that the assistance provided is guided solely by the needs of those seeking support. Importantly, the work is done on a pro bono basis, meaning that staff who reach out to Certioraris for guidance and support can do so without fear of financial burden.

Having worked within the United Nations for twenty years, I have witnessed firsthand how funding systems are often exploited to advance institutional or foreign narratives and suppress dissenting voices. Financial resources are frequently weaponized to reinforce external policies, manipulate recruitment processes, and shape outcomes to serve the interests of those in power, and sometimes even external entities or governments. This creates an environment where funding becomes a tool of control rather than a mechanism to support genuine reform or justice.

This steadfast commitment to independence and accessibility embodies the ethos of Certioraris: to serve those in need with integrity and dedication. While Certioraris does not accept external funding, it actively welcomes opportunities for collaboration and volunteerism. One of its core missions is to inspire and shape the critical minds of young volunteers in the legal, communications, and humanitarian fields. By engaging with Certioraris, these volunteers gain a deeper understanding of what it means to serve humanity with dignity and integrity, preparing them to embark on their professional journeys with a strong ethical foundation. 

The Journey We Share as UN Staff Inspired Certioraris

Having worked for 20 years in the UN, I still firmly believe in its founding principles. Unlike many others, my journey began from the bottom up, giving me firsthand insight into what national and locally recruited staff endure, including the discrimination often faced by these categories. I had to sacrifice a great deal on both a personal and professional level to advance my career, balancing the demands of being a mother and a professional in a system that often overlooks the unique challenges faced by women. This journey has given me a profound appreciation for the challenges faced by staff across all levels and categories. Over time, I transitioned to being an international professional civil servant, this long journey in diverse duty stations equipped me with a 360-degree perspective to understand and address problems from all angles. This experience allows me to respect and advocate for staff across all categories and nationalities. 

However, until the UN corrects its course and addresses these serious justice flaws, I will continue to advocate for the voices of the silenced—those who have been retaliated against, or anyone who continues to suffer injustice in a system that insulates itself from accountability. The privileges and immunities granted to the UN were intended to better serve the world, not to be exploited as a means of evading accountability when it suits.

As you explore Certioraris, I invite you to think about the principle of being “more fully informed” and how it applies to your own journey. Whether you are seeking justice, advocating for fairness, or simply trying to navigate a complex system, Certioraris is here to support you. 

“Just Let’s Wiggle a Little Bit”: Survivors Expose Sexual Harassment in UNHCR

This week, I continue my mission to expose the endemic issue of sexual harassment within the United Nations system. Once again, UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, finds itself under the spotlight.

The sexual predator, a senior staff member holding the position of Deputy Representative of UNHCR Operations in Niger at the P5 level, was the second-highest-ranking official in the country office. This article is based on the recent judgment, Kourouma v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/107), issued on December 6, 2024. The original version of the judgment is in French, but I am writing this article in English to reach a wider audience.

Let’s hear it directly from the testimonies of the three survivors.

“Just Let’s Wiggle a Little Bit”: A Traumatic Experience

MW – Senior Programme Monitoring Officer at UNHCR Libya, based in Tunis, Tunisia.

MW, a senior staff member based in Tunisia, recounted an incident during her mission to Niger in 2018. Her testimony revealed how, on the last day of her mission, the perpetrator invited her to his office under professional pretenses. As they bid farewell, he forcibly hugged her, attempted to kiss her on the mouth, and when she turned her head away, kissed her cheek instead. MW recounted how he said in French,

“Ah, tu ne veux pas être embrassée ?” or “Tu aimes pas ça ?” (“Oh, you don’t want to be kissed?” or “You don’t like that?”),

and then added in English,

“Just let’s wiggle a little bit”

as he pressed his body against hers and rubbed his genitals against her lower abdomen. She left the office immediately, deeply shocked and horrified by the experience.

Caught in the Predator’s Gaze

JL – Refugee Status Determination Expert, Associate Staff Member, UNHCR Niger.

JL, an associate staff member who joined UNHCR Niger in September 2019, described an unsettling incident on December 2, 2021. At the time, JL and the perpetrator had minimal contact due to their lack of professional overlap. On that day, as JL was sitting with a colleague after lunch, the perpetrator entered the room unexpectedly and placed his hand on JL’s shoulder, ostensibly to massage her.

When JL stood to fetch water, she felt the perpetrator’s gaze fixed inappropriately on her chest. Upon returning, he caressed her hand and ring, inquiring whether it was an engagement ring or a wedding band. Feeling uncomfortable and caught off guard, JL answered ambiguously. He then shifted the conversation to his own ring before JL left the room, deeply uneasy.

“I felt trapped and deeply uncomfortable, yet I didn’t know how to react given his seniority. Why was he doing this? We didn’t have any kind of relationship, and it was during the pandemic when personal contact was discouraged. I couldn’t understand his fixation with my ring; it felt invasive and deeply inappropriate.”

“La Petite”: Harassment Escalates Into Retaliation

GR1 – Associate External Relations Officer, UNHCR Niger.

GR1, an Associate External Relations Officer in Niger, endured persistent and invasive harassment from the perpetrator throughout her tenure. His behavior escalated over time, crossing professional boundaries and becoming increasingly inappropriate.

The perpetrator frequently hugged GR1, with these embraces lasting too long and bringing her chest close to his. He would touch her back, hair, or even her buttocks, behaviors she described as inappropriate and “beyond simple greetings.”

Each time he saw her—whether in the hallway or her office—he would touch her or caress her in ways that were uncomfortable and unwelcome. She attempted to ask him to stop but was ignored.

The perpetrator made phone calls to GR1 outside of work hours, which were often unrelated to professional matters. He attempted to invite her out, but she declined, explaining that she was not interested and had a young baby she was nursing.

When GR1 resisted his advances, the perpetrator retaliated by criticizing her job performance and casting doubts on her career prospects. His abuse of authority created an environment where GR1 felt compelled to avoid him, sometimes even hesitating to come to work.

GR1 recounted how the perpetrator avoided using her name and instead referred to her dismissively as “la petite” (the little one), a term she found inappropriate in a professional setting.

“Every time he hugged me, it felt like more than a greeting—it was intimate, sexual, and deeply unsettling. He touched me as one might touch a lover, sometimes even in the presence of others. It made me feel powerless and degraded. I began to avoid him at all costs, sometimes even dreading going to work. He abused his authority, and I couldn’t bring myself to report him. When I resisted his advances, he turned on me, questioning my competence and sabotaging my career prospects.”

Systemic Failures in Institutional Accountability

The testimonies of these three survivors underscore the systemic failure within the United Nations to address sexual harassment effectively. Their accounts are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of unchecked abuse, enabled by institutional inertia and a lack of accountability.

The tribunal’s findings are a critical indictment of both the perpetrator and the institution’s response mechanisms. The judgment noted the organization’s failure to address systemic issues. Despite UNHCR’s Code of Conduct sessions and policies on harassment, the supervisor’s behavior persisted unchecked for years. Indeed, one must ask, why did this senior staff member continue to sexually harass women without any action taken against him?

Gaslighting as a New Weapon: “Sexism Against Men”

During the tribunal hearing, the perpetrator attempted to deflect blame by claiming “sexism against men,” suggesting that male managers were the real victims. He argued,

“It’s unfair that female employees behave in certain ways towards men and then complain of harassment and discrimination.”

This statement highlights a troubling and insidious new tactic employed by some senior male staff: weaponizing claims of reverse sexism to undermine genuine complaints. Such gaslighting adds another layer to the persistent problem of sexual harassment and serves to silence victims further while deflecting accountability from perpetrators.

The survivors’ reluctance to report their experiences speaks volumes about the culture of retaliation within the UN. Their silence is not an isolated phenomenon but rather indicative of a pervasive fear that reporting misconduct will result in swift and career-ending retribution. Take a loot at the the case of Martina Brostrom, who dared to denounce Luis Loures. Brostrom faced severe professional and personal consequences after coming forward with allegations. For readers interested in learning more about her ordeal, resources detailing her case can be accessed here. Her experience demonstrates the dire need for robust protections for whistleblowers within the UN system.

Inefficiency of the Ethics Office and Reporting Mechanisms

The Ethics Office, tasked with safeguarding staff from retaliation, is emblematic of the systemic rot within the UN. Staff in the Ethics Office have no real or genuine interest in understanding the complexity of such cases, and I don’t blame them. They are severely understaffed and receive hundreds of complaints every day. Moreover, there is no segregation between reporting lines, meaning the office often ends up reporting to the Executive Office, creating yet another conflict of interest. This deeply flawed system fails to inspire confidence and leaves victims vulnerable to further abuse. And so, the saga continues.

Credibility of Victim Testimony: The Power of Voice Without Witnesses

Another important reminder from this judgment is the emphasis made again by the UNDT on the credibility of the victims’ testimonies. The tribunal emphasized that credible oral testimonies are sufficient to establish allegations of sexual harassment, even in the absence of corroborating evidence. It highlighted the consistency and detail in the victims’ accounts as key factors in reaching its decision.

As the UN Dispute Tribunal noted in Applicant UNDT/2022/071, paras. 76-77, in cases of sexual harassment,

“due consideration must be given to the victim’s account, as these situations are not taken lightly by those affected. In fact, due to the sensitive nature of the matter, it is often extremely difficult for victims to file formal complaints and go through official procedures.”

It is well-established that

“in cases of sexual harassment, credible oral testimony alone can be fully sufficient to substantiate a conclusion of serious misconduct, even without additional corroboration” (Hallal; Haidar 2021-UNAT-1076, para. 43).

Further, the tribunal dismissed arguments that cultural misunderstandings could explain the perpetrator’s behavior. It reaffirmed that the perception of the victim is central to determining harassment.

Unmasking Predators: Survivors Take a Stand

Both UNHCR, the agency tasked with protecting refugees, and OHCHR, entrusted with upholding human rights, appear to be grappling with an alarming increase in sexual predators within their ranks. Many of these perpetrators remain employed and unpunished, while their victims continue to suffer in silence. Victims and survivors speak to me daily, sharing stories of fear, retaliation, and prolonged sick leave as their only escape from the hostile work environment. How can these organizations continue to turn a blind eye to such pervasive misconduct?

What we are witnessing now is a form of reverse accountability. Victims and survivors no longer trust in the system designed to protect them.

Neither the Secretary-General, the OIOS, the IGO, the Ethics Office, nor the Ombudsman have taken meaningful action to provide genuine safeguards or justice. Instead, survivors are left to fend for themselves, their trust in the system completely eroded. Many have shifted their focus from seeking protection to demanding exposure of their abusers.

They want these sexual predators held accountable and their contracts terminated, and I agree with them.

A Serial Kisser in the UN: When Harassment Is Dismissed as Festive Fun

⚠️ Trigger Warning: This article contains detailed descriptions of workplace sexual harassment, which may be distressing to some readers, especially survivors of similar experiences. Please proceed with caution and prioritize your well-being.

“I’m a serial kisser.”

These were the chilling words of AAY, a P-5 level United Nations staff member, at UNHQ in New Yorkwhen describing his behavior during a farewell party at the United Nations headquarters in 2017. AAY’s actions that evening went far beyond social decorum, as he admitted to forcibly kissing, attempting to kiss, and physically restraining several female colleagues, leaving them shaken and traumatized.

In a UNAT judgment issued last week, AAY v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1493, the Appeals Tribunal reversed a previous UNDT judgment (Applicant v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UNDT/2023/111) that astonishingly justified the actions of the “serial kisser” because they occurred in a festive context. The UNDT, presided over by Judge Margaret Tibulya, ruled that AAY’s actions could not “reasonably be perceived to cause offence or humiliation, let alone to give any sexual connotation to the conduct,” given the festive nature of the event. 

This rationale, implying that workplace harassment is excusable at a party, is as baffling as it is dangerous.

Bias in Judgment: How Cultural Disparities and Selection Failures Undermine the UNDT

What does this mean for female staff members of the United Nations?

According to this logic, if you attend an end-of-year party or a Christmas gathering, and your boss or colleague forces himself on you, attempts to kiss you, or chases you down a hallway, you should simply brush it off.

Maybe so says the UN tribunal, as the “festive context” seems to render such behavior acceptable. One might sarcastically conclude that this is the justice system’s way of reminding women to avoid social gatherings entirely—lest they accidentally wander into a no-rules zone where basic human dignity no longer applies.

Are we moving forward or backward with this system of justice? A tribunal tasked with protecting the rights and dignity of United Nations staff instead normalized behavior that undermines safety and equality in the workplace. If workplace sexual harassment can be brushed aside as “festive,” one must question the integrity of the system itself.

What could have caused Judge Tibulya to be blinded in her judgment? While UNDT judges are selected based on recommendations from the Internal Justice Council, emphasizing high moral character, impartiality, and geographical representation, this process does not eliminate the potential for judges to bring their own cultural biases and preconceptions into their decisions.

Judges, like all individuals, carry their own perspectives and values, which may not always align with the principles of justice and equality upheld by the United Nations. Perhaps it is time to include specific training for UNDT judges not only on the organization’s zero-tolerance policies but also on recognizing and mitigating their own biases to ensure their decisions reflect UN values and uphold fairness.

How else can they understand that the setting of the misconduct does not absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? It’s alarming that in 2024, we are forced to reexamine the very basics of workplace ethics and accountability.

AAY’s admissions to investigators were nothing short of appalling. He admitted, “I was trying to kiss her, and that’s why she was retracting,” and “I kissed her or I managed to kiss her on the forehead…she retracted, you know just leaning on the back.” When questioned about holding AA’s face and forcing a kiss on her, he casually replied, “Yeah, that’s how it went actually,” and added, “it’s like what you do when you kiss someone, you take the face and then you kiss him.” Shockingly, he downplayed the incident further, remarking, “It was not like this was the most romantic moment in my life let’s say.”

Despite these confessions, corroborated by testimony from the victims, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) found that the evidence did not meet the threshold for establishing misconduct. Astonishingly, the tribunal rationalized its decision by stating that the incidents occurred in a “festive context,” as though the celebratory atmosphere excused AAY’s actions.

Serial Kisser’s Defense: It Was All Just Festive Fun

AAY’s behavior, by his own account, included intrusive and unwelcome physical advances toward three female staff members. Excerpts from the testimonies of these three women are chilling:

  • AA: “I kept on resisting then he … sort of forced my head down and kissed me on the forehead.”
  • BB: “He grabbed my face in front of everyone … my instinct at that moment was to freeze … it could have been a bit of an out-of-body experience.”
  • CC: “He kept asking, ‘Did I kiss you tonight? Let me kiss you.’ I said, ‘I’m not interested.’ I started shouting, ‘I’m not interested.’ He pulled my hands apart forcefully. I felt it was impossible for me to get out of that grip.”
  • CC (continued): “He fell on me, and I used all my strength to push him away. I almost bent completely back trying to avoid him. His whole body was on top of me, and I felt utterly trapped.”

These women’s testimonies highlight the physical and psychological trauma they endured. CC described the night as “traumatic,” adding that she “was utterly shocked… like this is my office space and colleagues who I saw every day.” The lingering impact of the event was severe, with victims reporting sleepless nights, anxiety attacks, and feelings of helplessness.

Excusing Harassment: A Dangerous Message from the UNDT

The UNDT’s handling of this case is nothing short of a dereliction of justice. By dismissing clear evidence of misconduct and prioritizing flimsy contextual justifications over the dignity, safety, and rights of the victims, the tribunal has sent an unacceptable and dangerous message. Allowing harassment to be excused under the guise of a “festive context” trivializes the severity of the misconduct and undermines the United Nations’ professed commitment to equality and accountability. Thankfully, the UNAT overturned this troubling judgment, restoring some semblance of justice. The victims’ courage in coming forward should serve as a reminder that workplace safety and dignity are non-negotiable.

However, the victims had to endure an agonizing seven-year wait for this final judgment, as the case was remanded multiple times, delaying closure and accountability. Adding to the indignity, in a stark departure from established jurisprudence, the name of the perpetrator was anonymized, shielding him from the full consequences of his actions and depriving the victims of the transparency they deserved.

Why can’t these senior leaders understand that sexual harassment is a real offense and that a woman has an unequivocal right to say no? The repeated recruitment of individuals who exploit their power and disregard the fundamental principles of dignity and respect raises urgent questions about the United Nations’ commitment to upholding its own values.

Why does it take the UN eight years to deliver justice? And why does it continue to allow predators to occupy positions of authority within its ranks, further tarnishing the trust of those they are meant to protect?

This case is a stark reminder of how far the system must go to achieve meaningful reform and ensure workplace safety, no matter the setting.

Why Misuse of $300,000 Is Forgiven: Betraying Africa and the UN’s Double Standards

In a not-so-surprising end-of-the-year twist from the UN Dispute Tribunal, a judgment in Egenhoff v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/108) was issued two days ago, shedding light on the alarming hypocrisy and casual horror with which the United Nations mismanages funds entrusted by donors and member states. Among the most shocking revelations was an email from the Director for the UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa stating:

“We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h)).

This casual remark not only raises questions about the lack of accountability but also exposes systemic flaws in how UN resources are allocated and justified. If there is leftover funding, it signals two disturbing realities: either the original project proposals were inflated from the start—effectively misleading member states and donors—or the allocated funds were poorly managed.

Worse still, instead of reallocating these surplus funds transparently or returning them to donors, the Applicant, T. Egenhoff, who was the Resident Representative (RR) for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Guinea-Bissau, used this as an opportunity to channel resources into projects linked to his former romantic partner’s organization, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). This reveals significant concerns about transparency and ethical stewardship, as the funds were hastily allocated to ensure they were not forfeited, bypassing competitive and thorough project evaluations.

Is this the level of accountability the UN upholds? To casually dispose of funds intended for vulnerable populations in Africa by rewarding personal relationships not only betrays the trust of donors and member states but also undermines the UN’s moral obligation to the communities it claims to serve.

The case involves T. Egenhoff, a former UNDP Resident Representative in Guinea-Bissau, accused of misconduct, including conflict of interest, leaking confidential information, and favoritism in procurement processes. His actions prioritized a personal connection over the integrity of the organization, undermining its accountability and ethical standards. Key findings from the judgment include:

  1. Conflict of Interest: Egenhoff maintained a close personal relationship with AH, his former romantic partner and the focal point for the organization IPA. The judgment noted that “the Applicant was involved in a significant part of the procurement process with IPA, for which his former romantic partner and still close friend was the focal point” (para. 40).
  2. Confidential Information Leaks: Egenhoff shared internal UNDP documents with AH, stating in one communication: “only for your eyes” (para. 35). The Tribunal observed that sharing such information violated the organization’s integrity and rules. It further emphasized that “the Applicant told IPA (through AH) how much money was available for outside projects and what types of projects IPA could propose” (para. 56), directly favoring IPA in the procurement process.
  3. Misuse of Funds: Egenhoff’s cavalier attitude toward resource allocation was evident in his actions following the Director’s email: “We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h)). The Tribunal criticized this approach, highlighting the reputational damage such conduct could inflict on UNDP.
  4. Transparency and Accountability: Egenhoff often blind-copied AH on internal communications, stating during the hearing, “I don’t know why I blind copied him because there’s no reason to blind copy” (para. 28). The judgment noted that “the purpose of sending a blind copy is precisely to obfuscate and hide from the other recipients that someone else is receiving a copy” (para. 29).

These actions, taken together, raised significant questions about Egenhoff’s ethical judgment and undermined the principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency within the organization. Despite these serious ethical violations, the Tribunal overturned Egenhoff’s dismissal and reduced the disciplinary measure to a written censure.

Similar Ethical Violations, Different Outcomes

The similarities between this case and the widely publicized UNOPS Vanshelboim case (Vanshelboim v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UNDT/2024/072) underscore systemic vulnerabilities in the UN’s internal controls and justice system. Judge Sean Wallace, who authored the lenient judgment here, was part of the three-judge panel that upheld the termination of a senior official in the Vanshelboim case. Both cases center on high-level misconduct involving conflicts of interest, misuse of UN resources, and prioritization of personal connections over organizational integrity. The only significant difference is the scale of the funds—$300,000 in this case compared to $63 million in Vanshelboim’s.

Key points of comparison include:

Conflict of Interest:

  • In the Vanshelboim case, the senior official was implicated in a conflict of interest by facilitating multimillion-dollar contracts for a company closely associated with him and his network. Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the UNDP Resident Representative (RR) ensured preferential treatment for IPA, represented by his former romantic partner AH, in a $300,000 project.
  • Both cases involve the improper use of personal relationships to bypass ethical standards and create opportunities for favored parties.

Favoritism in Procurement:

  • Vanshelboim was found to have disregarded competitive bidding processes, directly benefiting a specific vendor. Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the RR avoided competitive selection under the guise of urgency, ensuring IPA’s position as the sole vendor, even coaching AH on how to improve IPA’s proposal to meet the required standards (para. 56).

Misuse of Resources:

  • The Vanshelboim case exposed systematic abuse of UNOPS financial resources, with funds being diverted under questionable justifications. In Egenhoff’s case, the RR’s actions following the Director’s email—“We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h))—illustrate a similarly casual approach to fund allocation, prioritizing personal connections over the needs of vulnerable beneficiaries.

Reputational Damage and Sanction Discrepancies

  • Both cases highlight how unethical actions by senior officials jeopardize the United Nations’ credibility. In the Vanshelboim case, the tribunal explicitly stated: “The conduct not only breached internal regulations but posed significant reputational risks to the organization, diminishing donor trust and public confidence in UNOPS’s ability to manage resources responsibly.”
  • Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the tribunal noted that the RR’s actions exposed the organization to reputational harm, particularly due to his failure to disclose a conflict of interest and the perception that funds allocated for vulnerable populations were misused (para. 53).

In Vanshelboim’s case, the misuse of $63 million represented a large-scale betrayal of donor trust and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its developmental goals. Similarly, in the present case, the casual suggestion to find a project for “$300,000 left for African populations” reflects an equally damaging disregard for the ethical responsibility to prioritize those in need. Funds meant to support sustainable development in vulnerable communities were treated as an afterthought, diverted to benefit personal connections.

However, the intent remains the same: to deceive the organization, bypass its regulatory framework, and misallocate funds. At the heart of these violations lies a disregard for the communities the UN is mandated to serve.

This betrayal of trust extends beyond financial misuse. When senior officials exploit their positions, it tarnishes the UN’s reputation and erodes the confidence of the very populations that rely on the organization’s integrity to advocate for justice and equity.

Ethical Failures and Systemic Vulnerabilities

The UN framework relies heavily on the principle of ethical stewardship to maintain credibility with donors, partners, and beneficiaries alike.

When the UNDT applies such inconsistent standards—terminating one official for a $63 million violation while issuing a mere censure for a $300,000 misuse—it signals that the organization’s commitment to accountability is conditional, if not selective.

The crux of these violations is not the scale of the funds misused but the fundamental breach of trust in both cases. Judge Wallace’s markedly different judgments on two cases with fundamentally similar offenses suggest a troubling double standard that undermines confidence in the UNDT’s impartiality and weakens the UN’s moral authority in serving the world’s most vulnerable.

UNDT Judgment Exposes Culture of Impunity for Senior Sexual Predators

In a shocking judgment issued last week UNDT/2024/100 ATR vs. SG of the United Nations, the UNDT exposed the United Nations’ fallacious standards regarding #sexualharassment and the preferential treatment afforded to some of its senior sexual predators.

Despite numerous policies such as ST/ICs, ST/AIs, and ST/SGBs, allegations of sexual harassment within the #UnitedNations were still rampant by 2017. Secretary-General António Guterres requested the CEB to create a Task Force on Addressing Sexual Harassment within the Organizations of the UN System. Yet today, it seems the “zero-tolerance policy” has become a cherry-picking tool.

In a damning case, Mr. Polinikis Sophocleous, a D-1 level Director and Chief of Finance at the UNOV, was found guilty of sexually harassing a female staff member. The judgment revealed:

  • That the perpetrator made unwelcome physical contact, including hugs, kisses, and stares;
  • That the perpetrator made disturbing comments to the victim, including telling her that he “stroked a doll while naked in his office to relax when stressed”;
  • A hostile environment where the victim felt compelled to alter her attire, avoid him, seek counseling, and search for external opportunities to escape his predatory behavior.

This pattern of conduct was corroborated by witness statements describing his similar behavior toward junior female colleagues.

Despite the investigation substantiating the allegations, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources (ASG/HR) refused to disclose the disciplinary measure imposed on Mr. Sophocleous. The victim was left in the dark about what action, if any, had been taken—until she discovered through the perpetrator’s appeal that the penalty imposed was demotion by one grade with a three-year deferment for promotion eligibility.

A measure so lenient for proven acts of sexual harassment—including physical violations, obscene comments, and sustained psychological harm—not only diminishes the gravity of the misconduct but undermines the UN’s professed commitment to combating such behavior. This revelation starkly betrays the principles of accountability and zero tolerance that the UN claims to uphold in addressing sexual harassment.

What makes this measure even more egregious is the disparity it reveals: lower-level staff guilty of similar misconduct are always terminated, while a senior manager like Mr. Sophocleous escapes with a token punishment.

The Tribunal itself remarked on the absurdity of this disparity, noting that such leniency for senior officials is “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.” This leniency, delivered after a staggering three-year delay in sanctions, demonstrates not just systemic inefficiency but a disturbing willingness to shield high-ranking offenders at the expense of victims and accountability.

A Judge Stunned into Commentary

The shockingly lenient punishment so outraged the Tribunal that Judge Sean Wallace, presiding over the case, took the extraordinary step of including a detailed footnote to highlight the absurdity of the UN’s practices. Footnote 1, in particular, exposes the preferential treatment given to managers:

“Although sexual harassment most frequently results in termination of a UN staff member, if the offender is a manager with considerable power over the affected individuals, the most frequently imposed disciplinary measure is that of demotion with deferment of at least one year of eligibility for consideration for promotion.”

The judge’s decision to underscore this disparity in such a public manner reflects his astonishment at the blatant hypocrisy of the UN’s “zero-tolerance” policy. The footnote further critiques the reduced punishment for high-level officials as “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.”

Systemic Failures That Embolden Predators

Judge Wallace did not stop at criticizing the punishment; he also detailed systemic failures that protected Mr. Sophocleous:

  • Delays: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) took 16 months to notify the perpetrator of formal allegations and a staggering three years to impose sanctions. Such delays undermine accountability and embolden perpetrators.
  • Opaque Processes: The refusal to disclose the disciplinary measure denied the victim critical reassurance, leaving her to fear encountering her harasser in future roles within the UN system.

Even the most naïve observer would question how such actions align with the UN’s stated policy of zero tolerance.

A Perpetrator-Centered Policy: Exposing the Secretary-General’s Contradictions

One should not blame the Tribunal for the systemic failures exposed in this case.

Every year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations submits his report, Practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters and cases of possible criminal behavior, to the General Assembly. In his most recent report, A/78/603, covering the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, the SG reported that all cases of sexual harassment that were investigated resulted in the termination or dismissal of the staff member. These outcomes were rightly heralded as reinforcing the principle of the UN’s zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment (Ref: 624–628, p. 30 of the SG’s report).

But this raises the critical questions:

  • Why was Mr. Sophocleous, a senior official found guilty of sexual harassment, granted such preferential treatment and allowed to remain on active duty?
  • How can a staff member proven to have engaged in such egregious misconduct be permitted to continue working within the UN system?
  • And how can the Secretary-General continue to strongly proclaim that the “UN will not tolerate sexual harassment in its ranks” when actions such as these blatantly contradict those words? What kind of hypocrisy is this?

Rather than adopting a victim-centered approach, the UN has effectively embraced a perpetrator-centered approach.

The Right to Know: A Landmark Ruling for Victims of Sexual Harassment

In a groundbreaking analysis, the Tribunal ruled for the first time on the victim’s right to be informed of the disciplinary measure imposed on their harasser. The judgment stated:

“The Tribunal finds that the question of whether a victim of sexual harassment has the right to be informed of the discipline imposed on his/her harasser must be resolved. The question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether informing the victim that the Organization has ‘decided to impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ complies with the requirement to disclose ‘the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken.’”

The Tribunal unequivocally determined that it did not.

“In this context, saying that one took disciplinary action is not the same as disclosing ‘the action taken.’ It is a tautology; in other words, it is saying the same thing twice over in different words. In effect, the ASG/HR told the victim here that ‘the action taken was to take action.’”

The Tribunal further emphasized that the right of a victim to be informed of the disposition of their case is enshrined in para. 6(a) of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in A/RES/40/34, para. 3 (1985).

It clarified that the right of a victim of sexual harassment to know both the outcome of the investigation and the action taken is embedded in Section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1 and para. 5.5(i) of ST/SGB/2019/8, which explicitly state:

“[T]he affected individual … shall be informed on a strictly confidential basis of the outcome of the matter.”

The purpose of these provisions is clear: to create transparency and accountability, implementing the principle that “sunlight is an antiseptic” to the plague of sexual harassment. However, the UN’s response in this case failed to meet this standard. Instead, the refusal to disclose meaningful details to the victim rendered the process opaque and ineffective, an “inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.“

Under Staff Rule 10.2(a), “an appropriate disciplinary measure” could range from a written censure to separation from service. A written censure amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, while separation from service effectively ends a career within the international civil service. Thus, knowing precisely where the sanction falls on this spectrum is critical, yet the victim was denied this clarity.

The judge further recalled that it was essential to recall the context in which these policies were issued, particularly ST/SGB/2019/8, during the height of the #MeToo movement. “This was a time of global reckoning, with public outcry over the prevalence of sexual harassment and claims that the UN’s investigative system was failing, often shielding favored individuals. Despite these reforms, the organization’s actions in this case prove that those promises of accountability remain unfulfilled.”

In sum, the Tribunal found that the UN unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr. Sophocleous.

This judgment sets a critical precedent for the rights of victims of sexual harassment in the future. Without the right to know, the UN’s declarations are nothing more than lip service. Victims have the right to know. Sexual predators have no place in the organization—and they should never be protected.

A Perpetrator-Centered System

The UN’s actions in this case revealed a disturbing trend: a perpetrator-centered approach that prioritizes the privacy and careers of offenders over the rights and dignity of victims. The Tribunal ruled that the organization unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary action taken, stating:

“Informing a victim of sexual harassment that the Organization has decided to ‘impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ is opaque, not transparent, and an inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.”

Instead of protecting victims, the UN shields perpetrators through delayed processes, vague communication, and disproportionately lenient punishments. Even tools like the ClearCheck database, ostensibly designed to prevent re-employment of sexual predators, remain mired in opacity, with no clear accountability for its implementation.

Lip Service to Accountability

The Secretary-General’s annual reports claim that sexual harassment cases are handled with the utmost seriousness. However, this judgment exposes the truth: a justice system that protects the powerful and silences victims.

The Tribunal observed:

“When the Organization refuses to disclose the discipline it imposed, the harasser returns to work, and the Organization later admits that managers frequently receive lighter punishment than others for sexual harassment, even the most gullible person must wonder about the Organization’s professed commitment to ‘zero tolerance.'”

This is not an isolated case. It is emblematic of a broader pattern of hypocrisy, where rhetoric about justice and accountability is undermined by actions that perpetuate impunity.

Member States and Donors Must Demand Accountability for Sexual Harassment Failures in the UN

The UN is called upon to immediately address the following critical questions arising from this damning case:

  1. Why was a senior official found guilty of egregious misconduct allowed to effectively escape meaningful accountability? Despite clear evidence of predatory behavior, the imposed sanction amounted to little more than a career inconvenience—a far cry from the termination mandated by the UN’s so-called zero-tolerance policy.
  2. How will the UN ensure that all victims of sexual harassment are informed of the detailed outcomes of disciplinary processes against their perpetrators? In light of this judgment, transparency is not optional; it is an obligation. The right to know must be enforced consistently and without exception.

Donors and member states must demand clear and immediate answers from the Secretary-General about this case. How does the UN plan to reconcile its public commitment to a zero-tolerance policy with the blatant failure exposed in this judgment? Without transparency, justice, and accountability, what credibility remains for the organization tasked with upholding global human rights?

The media, civil society, and global stakeholders should question how the UN’s leadership plans to address this glaring hypocrisy. To remain silent is to condone a system that protects perpetrators and silences victims. This case must become a turning point, not another example of impunity buried in bureaucratic indifference.

I am writing this not as a distant observer but as someone who has experienced the crushing impact of the UN’s systemic failures firsthand. The Secretary-General and UN leadership must answer—not just to their staff, but to every individual who once trusted this organization to stand for justice. This case is personal for victims, and it should be personal for anyone who still believes in the ideals the UN claims to represent.

#Accountability #UNJustice #SexualHarassment #MeToo #ZeroTolerance #UN #Impunity #JusticeForVictims #UnitedNations

UNICEF’s Dilemma: Defender of Children or Destroyer of Families?

This is the story of a mother and #UNICEF staff member, whose treatment by the very organization tasked with protecting children’s rights stands as a shocking betrayal of its mandate.

The staff member began her journey with #UNICEF in #Gaza as a UN Volunteer (UNV) Assistant Education Officer in October 2022. By February 2024, pregnant with her second child and increasingly concerned about her health amidst Gaza’s deteriorating medical infrastructure, she requested a medical evacuation. It was not a request for privilege but a plea for survival—for her life and that of her unborn child. UNICEF also had a responsibility to evacuate her medically.

UNICEF evacuated her to Cairo, where she gave birth in April 2024. Just weeks later, the Rafah border closed, leaving her stranded in Egypt with a newborn and a toddler. The staff member became a #Palestinian #refugee in a foreign land, grappling with a dire reality. Her UNV contract was set to expire in June 2024, but UNICEF extended it for the duration of her maternity leave—a decision dictated by UN policy, not generosity.

What UNICEF did next was a cold and calculated act that destroyed any pretense of compassion or humanity.

At the end of her maternity leave, UNICEF terminated her contract.

No transition plan.

No support.

No accountability.

A Palestinian refugee from Gaza, a mother of two young children—was left without an income and stranded in a country where she had no legal residency.

Desperate, she sent an email to UNICEF, offering to risk the unimaginable: returning to Gaza, a war-torn land with her seven-month-old baby and three-year-old child, if it meant retaining her sole source of income. 

UNICEF’s shocking response? 

They silenced her entirely by shutting down her email account, severing her last lifeline to plead for her children’s survival.

Yes, you read that right.

This is how UNICEF treated their own staff member—a woman and a mother—during one of the most severe humanitarian crises of our time.

UNICEF claims to uphold the rights of children and advocate for their well-being. Yet, when faced with the plight of their own staff member’s children, they turned away.

How can we trust UNICEF to safeguard the rights of the world’s most vulnerable children if they fail to protect the children of their own staff?

The justification is always the same: budget constraints, post-conversion processes, or bureaucratic hurdles. But none of these excuses explain why her UNV contract could not be extended. She had served UNICEF for two years, and her evacuation to Cairo was a medical necessity—not a luxury. Instead, it appears UNICEF cynically treated her maternity leave as an opportunity to sever ties, hiding behind technicalities while abandoning her and her children to an uncertain fate.

Why should any woman be forced to choose between the right to embrace motherhood and the right to a fulfilling career?

Perhaps UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell cares to answer?

This is not just a failure of UN policy—it is a failure of ethical responsibility and the UN’s duty of care, perpetuated by an organization that claims to champion the rights of women and children.

Today, she remains in Egypt, a refugee in every sense of the word. Without legal residency, she cannot work. She cannot provide for her children. She faces insurmountable social, financial, and psychological challenges.

To UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous

What are you doing to ensure that women are not forced into impossible choices that risk their lives, jeopardize their children’s futures, and strip away their livelihoods? IIf such failures continue unchecked, what is the true value of your high-profile position and the mandate it represents?

UN Women’s mandate is clear: to champion gender equality and empower women, ensuring they can fully exercise their rights—including the right to work and to motherhood without fear or discrimination. Yet, in the case of the staff member, a mother and a UN staff member, these principles have been utterly abandoned.

How can the UN Women justify forcing staff like her to choose between their maternity leave, a perilous return to Gaza, or termination of their contracts?

Where is the accountability to uphold the very values that #UNWomen is meant to represent? How can women across the UN system trust that they will be supported in their roles as professionals and mothers if even your leadership has remained silent in the face of such injustice?

 How the War in Gaza Exposed UN Hypocrisy and Empty Promises

The war in Gaza has exposed many truths, but perhaps none as stark as the hypocrisy of institutions like UNICEF and UN Women. Organizations that positions themselves as the global defender of children’s rights and women’s empowerment and who failed spectacularly in upholding those principles for their own staff. 

This story is a glaring indictment of a system that preaches equality and protection but practices abandonment and betrayal. For the staff member and her children—living as refugees, stripped of dignity and support—the question is not just whether the UN will uphold the principles it preaches. It is whether the world can trust institutions that exploit their own policies to discard those who serve them.

If #UNICEF and #UNWomen are unwilling to protect the very women and children in their own organizations, how can they claim the moral authority to safeguard anyone else’s?

We must demand justice for the staff and her children by calling for her immediate reinstatement with the full dignity and support she deserves—because anything less is an acceptance of hypocrisy and a betrayal of the very principles UNICEF claims to uphold.

#UNICEFAccountability #ProtectMothersAndChildren #MaternityRights #SupportPalestinianRefugees #WomenInCrisis #AccountabilityNow #GazaVoices #ChildrensRights

“The UN’s Quiet Betrayal: Palestinian Staff Who Fled Gaza Face Job Termination”

This article exposes disturbing news within the United Nations’ humanitarian agencies: the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF are preparing to terminate the contracts of Palestinian staff who fled Gaza for safety. These staff members, who at great personal expense relocated to escape the intensifying conflictin Gaza, have continued to fulfill their roles remotely, demonstrating utmost commitment to their missions. Yet, in an unprecedented move, WFP, WHO, and UNICEF are demanding that these employees return to a war-torn Gaza or face job termination. This decision not only threatens the lives of Palestinian staff but also reveals a troubling double standard in the UN’s duty of care, as telecommuting privileges afforded to international staff in safe locations are denied to those in crisis zones. 

In response to this pressing issue, I have formally addressed a letter ( attached below) to Mr. António Guterres, Ms. Cindy McCain, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and Ms. Catherine Russell, urging them to halt the termination of Palestinian staff who have fled Gaza for their safety. I encourage you to share this letter widely and, if possible, send your own message to these leaders to amplify the call for a just and compassionate response to protect these dedicated colleagues.

As UN staff and advocates of humanitarian values, we have a duty to stand with our colleagues facing unjust decisions. By reading this article, raising awareness, and calling for an immediate halt to the termination of these Palestinian staff, you can help protect those who risk everything to serve.

In a shocking turn, the World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF have made a quiet yet devastating decision: to terminate the contracts of their Palestinian staff members who managed to escape Gaza. 

These are the people who, at their own expense and against all odds, sought safety outside the war zone, yet remain dedicated to their work and the humanitarian missions of these organizations. Now, WFP, WHO, and UNICEF are demanding they return to Gaza—a war torn region with decimated infrastructure and a collapsing health system—or face the end of their employment.

This is not just a policy decision; it is a direct threat to the lives of the very people these organizations are meant to protect. Instructing staff to return under such conditions, while withholding the telecommuting options freely available to staff in safer locations, exposes a troubling double standard in the UN system’s duty of care.

The World Food Programme has 12 national staff members who work in Gaza. The 12 staff have self-relocated themselves outside Gaza. Each staff member paid $5,000, plus an additional $5,000 per dependent, to secure safety for themselves and their families.

Now living in precarious conditions, they rely solely on their modest salaries. Remarkably, , these staff members have continued to telecommute and fulfill their duties under intensely challenging circumstances.

In the face of the escalating violence in Gaza, particularly in the north, one might expect these humanitarian agencies to support and protect their displaced staff. 

Instead, WFP has moved to terminate the contracts of these 12 staff members. UNICEF is preparing to follow suit with its 13 Palestinian staff, and the World Health Organization (WHO) plans to do the same for roughly 10 additional Palestinian personnel.

Yes, you read that correctly.

According to our sources, WFP has already conducted discreet meetings with affected staff, instructing them to return to Gaza before the year’s end, effectively ending their telecommuting arrangements. 

Last we heard, Gaza is a war zone, its infrastructure obliterated, its civilian population struggling to survive amidst scarce medical and humanitarian resources.

How, then, can these organizations demand that their Palestinian staff return to such conditions, with the threat of contract termination, if they do not comply?

Consider this: in Geneva, a headquarters duty station is classified as “A” (non-hazardous), with no active conflict, and more than 50% of staff are allowed to telecommute. 

Geneva employees enjoy top-tier medical insurance, offices overlooking Lake Leman, and work in the prestigious Palais des Nations. General Service staff in Geneva earn no less than $8,000 a month. 

Yet WFP, WHO, and UNICEF see fit to terminate some 30 Palestinian staff who risked everything to escape the violence in Gaza.

For Palestinian staff, apparently, telecommuting is not an option.

This approach starkly contradicts the principles of humanitarian aid and the duty of care these organizations claim to uphold.

Recently, WFP held a virtual meeting informing staff that if they do not return to Gaza by the end of December, they will be placed on special leave without pay and their contracts will not be renewed upon expiry. This approach seems almost Machiavellian, designed to avoid paying termination indemnities by letting contracts run their course instead.

While WFP, UNICEF, and WHO appear eager to terminate their Palestinian staff contracts, they are also rapidly issuing temporary surge contracts to international staff, bringing them to the Rafah border—where, reportedly, there is little they can contribute. 

The difference? 

These newly recruited staff are mostly from the Global North; they are not Palestinian.

Asking Palestinian local staff to return to Gaza amidst an escalating conflict represents a direct threat to their safety, blatantly violating the organization’s duty of care—a principle meant to apply to all staff, not just internationals.

Many of these Palestinian staff members have lost their homes and are already in dire financial straits. Cutting off their last source of income would be devastating for them and their families.

Most of these staff have served WFP, UNICEF, and WHO loyally for over fifteen years. Is this how the Secretary-General intends to reward Gaza’s Palestinian staff who have upheld the values of these organizations, even in the face of personal danger?

Letter_to_UN_Agencies_on_Palestinian_Staff_TerminationDownload

Inside the UN’s Culture of Retaliation: A Senior Staff’s Story of Integrity, Corruption, and Justice Denied

Three years ago today, I won my second and final appeal against the United Nations—a victory that, while significant, laid bare the depth of the UN’s failures in delivering real justice. As a former UN Chief of Operations, I dedicated over 20 years to upholding the values the United Nations claims to represent. But when I exposed unethical practices by senior officials, I faced systematic retaliation that shook my faith in the organization. My story sheds light on the UN’s deep-seated accountability issues, from manipulation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to the hollow promises of the UN’s mental health strategy. Despite winning multiple tribunal cases, I, like many others, was not reinstated—reflecting a system that too often protects itself rather than its people. Today, as the founder of Certioraris.com, I’m using my experience to support others who face similar challenges, advocating for true justice and reform within institutions that must live up to their ideals. This is a story of courage, resilience, and the urgent need for change within the UN—one that everyone committed to justice needs to read.

For over 20 years, I dedicated my life to the United Nations, working as the Chief of Operations in hardship duty stations and on critical start-up missions across the globe. My roles were multifaceted, often involving the launch of complex operations and initiatives that promoted gender parity and systemic reform within the UN. My career was a testament to integrity and perseverance, but it was also a path that led me to uncover deep-rooted corruption. Today, on the third anniversary of my successful appeal before the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), I reflect on a journey that should have exemplified justice but instead exposed a UN system that prioritizes self-preservation over accountability.

Standing Up for Integrity and the Cost of Doing So
My journey took a dark turn when I reported severe violations of UN regulations by senior officials at #UNRWA. From unethical promotions to blatant manipulation of recruitment processes and financial misconduct, I documented practices that contradicted the very principles the UN upholds. My position demanded vigilance and adherence to integrity, which meant challenging these breaches and holding all staff to the same standards. However, in taking a stand, I became a target of a systematic retaliation campaign led by the most senior male colleagues, including my own supervisor. Together, they fabricated accusations to tarnish my record, isolate me, and ultimately push me out. The United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal (UNDT and UNAT) later affirmed my claims, revealing that my termination was not due to any misconduct but rather an orchestrated attempt to silence me.

A Pattern of Success at the Tribunal—With No Real Justice

This was not the first time I had won a tribunal case. Throughout my career, I faced numerous attempts to derail my work, and each time, I fought back, securing victories in multiple tribunal cases with both the UNDT and the UNAT. But the true measure of justice is not merely a legal win; it’s in the actions taken afterward. Despite my victories, the UN’s response was shameful: ignore the rulings, refuse to reinstate me, and opt for payment in lieu.

Achieving justice within this complex system is nearly impossible for most UN staff. For most UN staff members, the odds of winning a tribunal case are almost insurmountable. My success came only because of my technical, in-depth knowledge of the rules and a relentless determination to see justice served. Without such insight, the average employee would face an uphill battle against a system designed to protect the institution rather than the individual.

The clause allowing payment in lieu of reinstatement is a perfect tool for the UN—a way to appease legal rulings without genuinely addressing the wrongs done to its staff. Since the UN’s justice system was reformed in 2010, not a single staff member who has won a case has been reinstated. This speaks volumes about the UN’s commitment to justice—a system that claims fairness yet systematically denies reinstatement to those who have been wronged.

A Victory in Name Only: Exposing Senior Officials’ Harassment and Gender Discrimination
One of my significant victories was an investigation that confirmed harassment, intimidation, gender discrimination, and bullying by a former Director of HR and a senior Director of Investigations at #UNRWA. A senior legal officer, complicit in their campaign, contributed to what can only be described as a coordinated “war” against me. Despite winning this investigation, these officials faced no repercussions. One was even permitted to leave with a substantial compensation package.

My experience reflects a troubling pattern within the UN, where women face disproportionate challenges in advancing and maintaining long-term careers. The judgments detail how senior male colleagues, including my supervisor, coordinated a campaign to fabricate accusations to discredit me. The harassment was so severe, with several men creating a hostile environment to isolate me and undermine my work. This coordinated action against a senior female official illuminates the deeply rooted obstacles women confront in the UN, especially when they challenge corruption and unethical practices. The organization’s failure to address these gender-based challenges weakens its commitment to equality, leaving talented women vulnerable to bullying and discrimination.

The then-Commissioner-General of #UNRWA disregarded my vindication entirely, allowing the perpetrators of my harassment to walk away unscathed while my career was dismantled. The irony was clear: I was ousted as a senior leader dedicated to transparency and reform, while those responsible for gross misconduct were protected.

The Unacceptable “Settlement” Offer: Bribery Disguised as a Settlement

Perhaps the most astonishing moment of my ordeal was a meeting with the former Commissioner-General of #UNRWA, a meeting that left me questioning every principle the UN claims to uphold. As he sat across from me, he held two things: a lucrative settlement offer and, in his other hand, an alleged letter of termination for misconduct. His offer was clear: resign quietly, take the money, a “good reference,” and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement waiving my rights to submit any claim against him or his senior management members or else face immediate dismissal. In that moment, all the UN’s values and principles—transparency, integrity, justice—vanished.

If my actions had truly warranted termination, why was he offering me an exit with a “good reference”? Why was he asking me to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement if he was sure of his actions and had done nothing wrong? The only plausible answer was that he sought to buy my silence, attempting to use the offer to shield both himself and the organization from scrutiny. The scene was both shocking and surreal, as he attempted to wield the “Damocles sword” of termination over my head, coercing me to leave in exchange for financial compensation.

I made it clear to the former Commisioner-General that I would not accept this bribe to cover up his misconduct and those of his senior management. I know today that the Commissioner-General will never forget that meeting or the words I said to him. He knows that, too and he knows the truth. Later, I provided the tribunal with a verbatim record of our conversation—a document that reveals the lengths he was willing to go to silence me. His actions and statements affected me profoundly, eroding my faith not only in him but in the entire organization. He has never apologized for this betrayal, perhaps out of fear of my response if he were to reach out. At one point, I held high respect for him, but his actions in that meeting alone have made me question the ethical core of the UN itself.

OIOS: Oversight in Name, Complicity in Practice
The role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in my case was particularly troubling. OIOS, tasked with investigating misconduct, instead acted in concert with senior officials to facilitate my removal. The tribunal findings highlighted OIOS’s conflict of interest, a fact underscored by its blatant disregard for witness testimonies and crucial evidence that could have cleared my name. Rather than upholding justice, OIOS became an instrument of retaliation, amplifying the false allegations against me while ignoring the documented misconduct of those I had exposed. This misuse of investigative power not only damaged my career but also revealed a deeper flaw in the UN’s oversight mechanisms—a system that claims objectivity yet operates in service of those it should hold accountable.

The Secretary-General’s “Mental Health Strategy”: A Failed Promise
The Secretary-General’s system-wide mental health strategy is often touted as evidence of the UN’s commitment to staff well-being. But my experience—and that of countless others—reveals a starkly different reality. This so-called strategy is, in essence, little more than rhetoric. Staff members who challenge corruption face prolonged harassment and isolation, with no meaningful support or protection. The UN’s mental health initiatives are cosmetic, lacking substance or genuine commitment. If the organization truly valued the mental well-being of its employees, it would address the root causes of stress and retaliation, rather than merely offering superficial solutions. A true commitment to mental health would create a culture where individuals feel safe and valued, not targeted for upholding ethical standards.

Certioraris.com: Advocating for the Silenced
While my career at the UN ended prematurely, I have channeled my experience into a new mission: supporting others who find themselves ensnared in similar struggles. As the founder of Certioraris.com, I receive hundreds of messages daily, many from individuals reaching out anonymously, fearful of the consequences of speaking up. Through Certioraris, I offer resources, guidance, and advocacy for those trapped within institutional systems that punish integrity. My goal is to empower these individuals, giving them the tools to navigate and challenge the injustices they face. Certioraris has become a refuge for those who, like me, have witnessed the gap between the UN’s public ideals and its internal practices.

A Demand for Reform, Not Empty Promises


My story is not unique; it is one of many that underscores the urgent need for structural reform within the UN. The Secretary-General’s refusal to reinstate staff who have won tribunal cases, the misuse of OIOS investigations, and the failure of the Ethics Office to protect whistleblowers all point to a system designed to insulate itself from accountability.

The UN cannot continue to ignore its internal failures while claiming to champion justice and integrity on the world stage. Genuine reform requires dismantling the culture of impunity that protects senior officials and prioritizing accountability over self-preservation. Until these changes are enacted, the UN will continue to lose committed professionals who once believed in its mission.

Real justice demands action, not rhetoric, and the time for that action is now.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Mr. António Guterres

Subject: Accountability and Action Required on the Ongoing Genocide in Palestine

Mr. Secretary-General,

While we recognize that the United Nations reflects the collective will of its member states, these states must take greater action. However, your position as Secretary-General demands more from you in this critical moment for humanity.

It is unfathomable that ethnic cleansing in North Gaza is taking place before the eyes of the world, with the international community remaining largely passive. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, you have a duty to uphold. You can, and you must, do more.

The time for mere ‘condemnation’ has passed. The United Nations must replace it with an uncompromising and explicit denunciation of those perpetrating this genocide against the Palestinian people: the State of Israel.

Yes, this is a genocide in plain sight—a systematic extermination of innocent, defenseless Palestinian men, women, and children.

The international community cannot remain idle when the voice of a Palestinian mother cries out: “I lost my ten children. All killed by Israel. I have no one with me but God.”

The United Nations has failed—and it has failed miserably. You, Mr. Secretary-General, have failed, and history will hold you accountable. You cannot continue to hide behind empty statements. You have a duty to stand up for what is right.

Mothers around the world are watching in horror.

Enough killing.
Enough maiming.
Enough burning.
Enough bombing.
Enough orphaning.
Enough.

In one word, Israel has rendered the world: 

Soulless.

Mr. Secretary-General, you cannot disregard the United Nations’ lessons and the insights of former Secretaries-General on the early warnings of genocide, especially since the situation in Gaza has already surpassed this stage. On March 26, 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan delivered a statement in remembrance of the Rwandan genocide. The excerpts from his message, now more relevant than ever, echo with even greater urgency today:

“If the United Nations, government officials, the international media, and other observers had paid more attention to the gathering signs of disaster, and taken timely action, it might have been averted. Warnings were missed. I recall a 1993 report by a United Nations special rapporteur that spoke specifically of an impending catastrophe.”

“None of us must ever forget, or be allowed to forget, that genocide did take place in Rwanda, or that it was highly organized, or that it was carried out in broad daylight.  No one who followed world affairs or watched the news on television, day after sickening day, could deny that they knew a genocide was happening, and that it was happening on an appalling scale.”

“Eight hundred thousand men, women and children were abandoned to the most brutal and callous of deaths, as neighbour killed neighbour.  Sanctuaries such as churches and hospitals were turned into slaughterhouses.  An entire country was shattered.  A terrible chain of events gradually engulfed the entire region in conflict. Ten years later, we are trying to pick up the pieces.”

“If we can accept that everyone on this earth, regardless of colour, creed, language or ethnicity is fully human — and, as such, fully worthy of our interest, sympathy and acceptance –- we will have taken a giant step forward from dehumanization and toward a stronger sense of global kinship.”

Call for Immediate Action:

Mr. Secretary-General,


I urge you to immediately distribute the report by Mr. B.W. Ndiaye, Special Rapporteur on Rwanda, dated August 11, 1993, to all permanent missions at the United Nations. As Secretary-General, it is your responsibility to remind member states of the devastating consequences that arise from ignoring the lessons of history. You are their voice, and it is your duty to guide them, ensuring they understand the grave repercussions of neglecting these lessons.

There are clear parallels between the early warning signs outlined in the Rwanda Genocide report and the ongoing Palestinian Genocide, including:

1. Widespread Extrajudicial Killings and Targeting of Civilians:

Rwanda: The Special Rapporteur’s report notes frequent extrajudicial killings, massacres of civilians, and a deliberate targeting of Tutsis by Hutu militias and security forces. These actions involved organized campaigns of violence, reflecting state complicity or inaction.
Palestine: Reports by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, document civilian casualties resulting from Israeli airstrikes and military operations in Gaza, as well as extrajudicial killings of Palestinians in the West Bank. They also describe targeted attacks on civilians, including women and children, and carpet bombing of densely populated areas like Gaza, resulting in large-scale civilian casualties. Gaza, especially North Gaza, has been wiped to the ground. Hundreds of Mass Graves in Gaza have been uncovered in the past few months.

2. Impunity and Lack of Accountability:

Rwanda: The report highlights a “tradition of impunity,” where those responsible for violations of human rights, including state actors, were not held accountable. This culture of impunity emboldened the perpetrators and perpetuated the violence.
Palestine: A recurring critique by international human rights bodies is Israel’s lack of accountability for human rights abuses and violations of international law in Palestinian territories. The Israeli government and military officials are rarely held responsible for attacks on civilians or violations of international law, perpetuating cycles of violence and contributing to a deep sense of injustice. Even arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant have proven to be in vain.

3. Ethnic and Political Discrimination:

Rwanda: The report mentions policies institutionalizing discrimination against Tutsis and other minorities, combined with propaganda that depicted Tutsis as a threat, fostering an environment ripe for mass violence.
Palestine: Palestinians face systematic discrimination in various aspects of life, including housing, movement, and access to resources. The Israeli legal framework differentiates between Israeli settlers and Palestinians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which human rights organizations and the UN have described as a form of apartheid. In Gaza, the ongoing blockade has created dire humanitarian conditions for Palestinians and imposed starvation on the Palestinian people, equating to war crimes.

4. Injurious Propaganda and Incitement to Violence:

Rwanda: Hate propaganda was a key factor in fueling violence, with media outlets inciting ethnic hatred and dehumanizing the Tutsi population. This incitement contributed to a climate that normalized violence against the Tutsi community.
Palestine: There is significant concern over rhetoric that dehumanizes Palestinians and legitimizes violence against them. Statements by several Israeli political leaders including PM Netanyahu, Galant, Ben Gvir and Smotrich, media narratives, and social media campaigns have been cited as inciting violence or promoting discriminatory attitudes, fostering a climate that normalizes aggression against Palestinians

5. Mass Displacement and Humanitarian Crisis:

Rwanda: Nearly a million people were displaced.
Palestine: Two million Palestinians have been displaced, living in dire humanitarian conditions. Palestinians now live now in makeshift shelters or overcrowded camps. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is particularly dire, with shortages of clean water, electricity, and essential medical supplies, exacerbating civilian suffering and leading to a huge number of deaths every day. All Hospitals and Ambulances have been destroyed, and yesterday, Red Crescent volunteers have been stopped from continuing their life-saving roles in North Gaza.

6. International Community’s Role and Warnings:

Rwanda: The report warned the international community about the ongoing human rights violations and the potential for mass atrocities. Despite this, there was a lack of meaningful international intervention until the genocide was well underway.
Palestine: The situation in Gaza and the West Bank has been under international scrutiny for decades. Despite repeated warnings from UN agencies, international bodies, and human rights groups about potential war crimes and mass atrocities, there has been limited action to address the root causes of the violence or hold perpetrators accountable. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has launched into a 24/7 televised genocide against the Palestinian people.

In his conclusions in the 1993 report, the Special Rapporteur reminded member states that his

“recommendations take as their starting-point the principle that although their country is poor and overpopulated and they are exposed to all the evils of underdevelopment, Rwandese citizens, whatever their ethnic group, political affiliation or social origin, have the same fundamental rights as all other citizens throughout the world. There is no reason why their lives should not be as precious and well protected as the lives of citizens of the Netherlands, for example.”

The exact starting principle applies to the Palestinian people. You, as Secretary-General, must remind the international community that:

There is no reason why Palestinian lives should not be as precious and well protected as the lives of citizens of the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, France or the United States, for example.

While the historical, political, and contextual differences between Rwanda and Palestine are significant, the key similarities lie in the dynamics of ethnic cleansing, systematic violence, impunity, discrimination, and the international community’s inadequate response. In both cases, there is a failure to protect civilians and prevent human rights abuses, despite repeated warnings and evidence of escalating violence. The lessons from Rwanda underscore the urgent need for accountability, international intervention, and meaningful efforts to address the systemic causes of violence and discrimination to prevent further atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Mr. Secretary-General, your continued inaction in the face of what is undeniably a genocide in Palestine is an unforgivable betrayal of the very principles the United Nations was founded upon. The mandate of your office is not a privilege to be passively held but a solemn responsibility to actively protect those in danger. By remaining silent as atrocities are committed, you are failing not just the Palestinian people, but the entire international community that looks to you for moral leadership in times of crisis.

It is not enough to issue vague statements of concern or empty condemnations. You must denounce Israel as the enabler of this genocide, unequivocally and publicly, and take clear, immediate action with member states to stop these atrocities. The world is witnessing not just an escalating conflict, but the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, the systematic destruction of their homes and infrastructure, and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of an entire Palestinian population.

Your reluctance to act decisively in this moment of grave injustice is a stain on your tenure and a dereliction of your responsibilities. The bloodshed in Palestine is not just a tragedy—it is a crime against humanity, and your failure to address it directly and truthfully implicates your leadership in its continuation. History will not absolve those who stood idly by or spoke in euphemisms while lives were destroyed.

If you do not act now, Mr. Secretary-General, you will forever be remembered not as a steward of peace, but as an enabler of genocide. You have the power to make a difference, to intervene decisively, and to mobilize the world’s conscience. Yet every moment of passivity and silence from you is a choice to condone these atrocities.

We demand that you take immediate action and use the full weight of your office to mobilize member states to stop this genocide. Issue clear denunciations of those responsible, enforce sanctions, and establish mechanisms for accountability. Anything less is complicity.

Choose to be remembered as a leader who took a stand against genocide, not one who looked away while an entire Palestinian people were systematically eradicated. History is watching, the world is watching, and the suffering in Palestine demands your courage and your voice—now.

Sincerely,
Nadine H. Kaddoura
Former UN Senior Staff and Founder
CERTIORARIS                                                                                                                                 24 October 2024

Special Rapporteur Rwanda ReportDownload

2024 Worst Year for MultiLateralism at the United Nations?


2024 is the year that witnessed the highest number of extrajudicial killings carried out by the state of Israel.

Hello, Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Your views?

2024 is the year that saw the highest number of Children Killed and DECAPITATED by the state of Israel

Hello, Virgina Gamba, Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. Your statement?

2024 is the year that saw the highest number of Women Killed by Israel, more than any other equivalent period of any war over the last two decades.

Hello, Sima Bahous, Executive Director of UN Women. Do you really care about Arab Women?

2024 is the year that saw the worst humanitarian crisis and forced starvation imposed by Isr@el against the Palestinian people in Gaza

Hello, Joyce Cleopa Msuya Mpanju, USG United Nations OCHA; Hello, Cindy H. McCain, Executive Director of the World Food Programme

Maybe you don’t need to do anything because Israeli PM convinced you that he was providing 3000 calories for every Palestinian on a daily basis?

2024 witnessed the worst record of human rights abuse by Israel against Palestinians, killing doctors and medical staff, torturing Palestinians, pioneering pagers detonations in Lebanon, etc…

Hello, Volker Türk, High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights. Did you hear the boom?

2024 witnessed the worst record of sexual violence against Palestinian men and women.

Hello, Pramila Patten, Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict. What do you do exactly?

2024 witnessed the worst record of violence against Palestinian children, maiming them, orphaning them, and traumatizing them.

Hello, Najat Maalla, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence against Children. Do you really care?

2024 saw the Children of Palestine deprived of any emergency food and healthcare.

Hello, Catherine Mary Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF; we know you’ve visited Gaza only once. WOW!

2024 saw the Children of Gaza deprived of any education or normal upbringing and the highest number of mosques and churches destroyed by Israel.

Salut Audrey Azoulay, Executive Director of UNESCO, rings a bell?

2024 is the Year that Israel committed the worst live Genocide against Gaza.

Hello Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, do you really exist?

2024 is the year that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli PM Netanyahu, but he was still allowed to enter the UNHQ premises.

2024 is the year that the Israeli ambassador to the UN shredded the UN Charter in protest over the Palestine vote in the GA.

2024 is the year that the Secretary-General allowed Hitler to attend the 79th General Assembly.

2024 is the year that the United Nations principles of :

Maintaining International Peace and Security.
Protecting Human Rights.
Delivering Humanitarian Aid.
Upholding International Law

Became Useless Slogans.