In IOM, a Chief of Mission has been sexually harassing a dozen female staff members, with the former Director General covering for him.
More than a dozen United Nations IOM female staff members filed independent complaints of sexual harassment against a current Chief of Mission.
The former Director General was formally apprised of these complaints, yet he took no action.
The PSEA focal point, entrusted with protecting victims and ensuring reporting of sexual misconduct, actively discouraged the complainants by stating
“If I had suffered sexual harassment by a senior staff member, I would not report it.”
The IOM Ombudsman did not fare any better, instead turning a blind eye.
The IOM sexual harasser continued in his functions as if nothing had happened.
Several staff members subsequently began experiencing retaliation in different forms.
When the Internal Office of Investigations finally decided to launch an investigation, many of the complainants chose to withdraw their complaints out of fear of being identified through their testimonies, even where anonymity was supposedly guaranteed.
The investigation was unfortunately protracted, to the detriment of many staff members, some of whom chose to leave the Organization altogether. At the same time, the IOM sexual harasser remains very much in place and without concern.
More worryingly, a 2022 External Evaluation of IOM’s Approach to Protection Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment noted in its final report a deeply troubling approach to dealing with sexual harassment at IOM with the report presenting an encouraging view that some forms of sexual harassment could be addressed through management action, or for informal mediation by the Office of Ombudsperson should the affected individual choose not to pursue a formal investigation.
This approach does not dissuade perpetrators from continuing predatory behavior. On the contrary, it has proven largely ineffective and extremely damaging. The dozens of women who complained in this case reached out to the former Director General, to the PSEA focal point, and to the Ombudsman. None of these actors deemed it necessary to stop the aberrant behavior.
When she assumed her functions as the new Director General of the International Organization for Migration on 1 October 2023, Amy Pope, the first woman to lead IOM in its history, stated in her speech:
“I pledge that IOM will put at its highest priority protecting the women and girls we serve.”
It is time to practice what you preach. The continued presence of a Chief of Mission accused by multiple female staff members of sexual harassment, after years of inaction, retaliation, and institutional failure, cannot be reconciled with it.
Amy Pope, the moment for statements has passed.
Accountability now requires immediate and decisive action.
In the wake of the open letter recently published from a feminist collective of UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency staff documenting two years of unresolved complaints involving intimidation, aggression, and a hostile work environment, and pointing to institutional failures across oversight, ethics, and human resources functions, I was contacted by aUNHCR junior staff member who wished to support the concerns raised.
The UNHCR staff member came forward to support the collective’s concerns and shared their official exit interview. I am publishing a summarized and redacted version of that testimony to protect anonymity.
While personal in nature, the account closely and independently corroborates the allegations made by the UNHCR collective of female staff, describing a work environment marked by harassment, intimidation, aggression, abuse of authority, humiliation, the absence of effective protection mechanisms, and a hostile work environment that ultimately led to resignation.
Taken together, these testimonies paint a grim picture of a toxic work culture within parts of UNHCR, where harassment and abuse of authority permeate the environment systematically.
The exit interview includes the following account:
“My manager shouted directly in my face and threw a folder containing World Refugee Day documents at me.”
That this incident involved World Refugee Day materials is difficult to ignore. It underscores the widening gap between the values UNHCR publicly promotes and the treatment experienced by staff behind closed doors and raises an uncomfortable question about what happens when dignity is not practiced internally.
At this point, it is fair to ask whether UNHCR’s exit interviews serve any purpose beyond documenting harm after staff have already left.
This open letter was entrusted to me for publication by a group of women staff members working within the United Nations system.
It is formally addressed to Mr. Barham Salih, the newly appointed High Commissioner for UNHCR. The same concerns and supporting material were raised repeatedly over the past two years with his predecessor, Mr. Filippo Grandi, and were copied to the Secretary-General and senior UN leadership, without resulting action.
Written after the exhaustion of all internal mechanisms, the letter raises serious concerns about impunity, institutional silence, and failures of accountability within UNHCR, including the roles of oversight, ethics, and human resources functions.
I am sharing it in the interest of transparency, accountability, and informed public discussion.
*Disclaimer: This letter is published at the request of the authors. I am not a party to the matters raised.
On 21 September 2025, one day before the opening of the General Assembly marking the 80th Anniversary of the United Nations, the Secretary-General sent a broadcast to all UN Secretariat staff in which he threatened disciplinary action against staff who express personal views, whether in public statements, private fora, or on social media, if those views are deemed inconsistent with the Organization’s official position.
The broadcast, titled “Guidance on Personal Communications – Reminder”, reiterates staff duties under Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the UN Ethics Office’s 2025 Guidance on Political Activities. It cautions staff to exercise restraint in their personal communications, including on private social media, reminding them that any expression, whether through posts, likes, or shares, must not conflict with the Organization’s interests or adversely reflect on their status as international civil servants. Crucially, it directs staff to ensure their communications on current crises and political matters are “consistent with the position of the Organization and the statements of the Secretary-General.” The warning is clear: non-compliance may trigger disciplinary proceedings, leading to sanctions
The SG’s message in the broadcast was unambiguous:
“Failure to do so can result in the initiation of a disciplinary process, which may result in disciplinary sanctions being imposed.”
This comes as no surprise, as the Secretary-General bends yet again to Israeli and U.S. pressure to muzzle the voices of UN staff. This manufactured silence projects a false image of consent, an image designed to shield Israel from the reality of staff dissent.
Over the past weeks, many staff have confided in me that they are retreating into silence, not out of conviction, but out of fear. Fear of losing their jobs, their salaries, their stability. I understand this deeply: they have families to sustain, obligations they cannot abandon, and many are already serving in conflict zones, enduring hardship and danger as part of their daily reality
What is new, however, is the extent to which the United Nations is willing to bend to external pressure, prepared to silence and even dismiss its own staff in order to appease two Member States, one of which is openly and actively committing a genocide and boasting of it at the podium of the General Assembly.
In 1994, during the genocide in Rwanda, there was no social media, and staff openly debated opposing views. Neutrality as a principle of international civil service already existed, but there was no talk of staff being disciplined for expressing opinions or engaging in such debates. This rigid and punitive interpretation has only been aggressively imposed in the past decade, mainly under pressure from Israel and the US.
Neutrality as a principle of international civil service already existed, but there was no notion of staff discipline being invoked against those who spoke their mind. That rigid and punitive interpretation of neutrality is a more recent phenomenon one that, over the past decade, has been aggressively driven by Israel and its donors.
In my twenty years of service across the UN system, deployed around the globe and responsible for enforcing compliance with the Code of Conduct, I had never encountered neutrality being used in this way. Not once did it become an issue with staff until I joined UNRWA. It was there that neutrality began to be systematically weaponized, not as a principle of balance, but as a tool to silence and punish dissent
It began with UNRWA, where students were forbidden from drawing maps of Palestine or their homeland under the pretext of neutrality, with U.S. donors threatening to cut funds unless such drawings were erased from UNRWA school halls. From there, the campaign escalated into systematic monitoring of UNRWA staff social media accounts, with weekly reports sent to management demanding disciplinary action. Many staff were dismissed as a result. And today, that same model is being extended to UN Headquarters staff in Geneva, New York, and across the system.
What began as pressure on one Agency has now become institutionalized across the entire United Nations system. This latest broadcast to all Secretariat staff is nothing more than the UN-wide extension of that same playbook: the silencing, disciplining, and dismissal of staff under the banner of “neutrality.”
So, under this broadcast, if a staff member states that Israel is killing thousands in Gaza, starving millions, or violating international humanitarian law, they risk being accused of breaching neutrality and subjected to disciplinary action even dismissal.
And yet, let us pause here and recall the Secretary-General’s own words. The SG is not only a political figure. He is also the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations, and from that very position, he has spoken those exact words at the podium of the General Assembly.
On 22 September, in his remarks to the General Assembly marking the 80th Anniversary of the UN, he declared:
“As we meet, civilians are targeted, and international law trampled in Gaza.”
And on the same day, at the High-level International Conference on Palestine, he went further and said :
“….nothing can justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people or any form of ethnic cleansing.
The systematic decimation of Gaza.
The starvation of the population.
The killing of tens of thousands of civilians, most of them women and children, and hundreds of our own humanitarians.
Nothing can also excuse developments in the West Bank that pose an existential threat to a Two-State solution.
The relentless expansion of settlements.
The creeping threat of annexation.
The intensification of settler violence.
All of it must stop.
The situation is morally, legally and politically intolerable.”
Scathing remarks; brave even. So why is the Secretary-General allowed to voice what his conscience compels him to say to remain sane, while staff are forbidden from saying the very same words, under threat of dismissal?
The answer is straightforward: because the vast majority of UN staff oppose this genocide. If their voices were heard, public opinion would turn even more decisively against Israel. Proof of that is already visible in the General Assembly, where the mass walkouts during the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech spoke louder than any resolution.
One thing is certain: this is an extremely dangerous trend. The UN is now actively muzzling the voices of its own staff. By silencing its own staff, the United Nations entrenches complicity at its core.
Here is the catch: this broadcast, titled ‘Guidance on Personal Communications – Reminder’ (full text above), explicitly instructs staff that any personal communications, even on private social media, must align with the official position of the Organization. That ‘position,’ of course, is articulated by the Secretary-General himself, and his own words on 22 September leave no ambiguity about what that position is.
This is the contradiction in plain sight: staff are being threatened with dismissal unless they align their views with the Secretary-General’s official position, yet when they do exactly that, they are still silenced.
Why can the Secretary-General, as Chief Administrative Officer, speak publicly and denounce ethnic cleansing, starvation, and the trampling of international law, yet staff who echo his very words are punished, investigated, or even dismissed?
This contradiction institutionalizes censorship at the very heart of the United Nations and signals a dangerous erosion of the independence of its international civil service.
If the Secretary-General may speak truth to power, why are staff denied that same right?
Mr. Guy Bernard Ryder, USG for Policy and Head of the UN80 Taskforce
cc: Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Ms. Elinor Hammarskjold, USG for Office of Legal Affairs
Ms. Catherine Pollard, USG for Management
Mr. Courtenay Rattray, Chef de Cabinet
Mr. Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General
Subject: UN80 Early Separation Agreements – Legal Objections and Breach of the Principles of the Administration of Justice
Dear Mr. Ryder,
I write to register a formal objection to the UN80 Taskforce’s deployment of “early separation” agreements containing waiver clauses of sweeping breadth. Such provisions are inconsistent with binding jurisprudence, violate the Organization’s own regulatory framework, and are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the administration of justice as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
As USGs and ASGs shield themselves behind UN80 to settle personal or political scores and effect separations under the guise of budget cuts and restructuring, the Office of Human Resources has advanced further. In a calculated effort to insulate the administration from future litigation and to avoid paying higher awards before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), OHR has initiated the use of “agreed terminations” and “early separation packages,” thereby inducing staff to separate voluntarily in lieu of seeking judicial review.
While ostensibly framed as a matter of choice, in practice these agreements operate as legal entrapment. Staff are invited, under the pretext of “budgetary necessity”, to sign away vested rights, including those relating to pending complaints and ongoing litigation.
It is manifest that the present targets are not incidental redundancies but include staff engaged in active disputes, harassment claims, or proceedings seeking accountability from senior officials. I am personnnaly aware of several ongoing cases.
The construct is deliberate: frame the separation as “voluntary” while embedding a waiver clause of such sweeping breadth that it extinguishes all present and future claims, thereby foreclosing judicial recourse and insulating the Organization from liability for misconduct, however egregious.
This provision appears verbatim in the UN80 agreement:
“I agree to withdraw all claims and appeals I may have pending against the Organization, and I will make no further claims or appeals against the Organization arising from my terms of appointment or separation from service with the Organization. In addition, I acknowledge that as at the date of this agreed termination, I have no further claims against the Organization;”
Binding Jurisprudence
Just a few days ago, on 11 August 2025, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a landmark judgment, Melbiksis v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2025/053), the first of what is likely to be a series, in which UNHCR invoked a materially identical “no-sue” clause to bar receivability. The Tribunal held:
“Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s three misconduct reports are not covered by the settlement agreement, including its no-sue clause. The Tribunal notes that if a no-sue clause of a settlement agreement was to be extended to cover all future misconduct reports of a releasor (in the present case, the Applicant) concerning a releasee (UNHCR), the risk would be that any rejection of a misconduct report regarding, even very serious, disciplinary offences could subsequently be shielded entirely from judicial review.
Creating such a culture of impunity defies the fundamental principle of access to justice and would not be in the best interest of the Organization.”
A culture of impunity. This is precisely what UN80 is institutionalizing.
The Organization’s pattern of abuse of such clauses was further confirmed earlier in 2023 in Shahwan v. Commissioner-General of UNRWA (UNRWA/DT/2023/018/Corr.01). UNRWA, in particular, is well known for its systemic and recurrent misuse of unlawful non-disclosure agreements and separation terms to suppress claims and shield officials from accountability. In that case, the Tribunal ruled:
“The agreed conditions at stake (sections 12 and 13 Separation Agreement) were therefore obviously violating the standards enshrined in the Standards of Conduct.
All individuals involved in the negotiations and consequent conclusion of the conditions in question should have been aware that the agreed conditions were not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and the UN.
The Tribunal finds that there is a hierarchy among the obligations in question. The Tribunal finds that, in general, obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member.
The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal.”
Applicable Legal Principle
The principle emerging from the above jurisprudence is unequivocal: no private agreement, however artfully drafted or coercively negotiated, can lawfully displace obligations arising under the Charter of the United Nations, the Standards of Conduct, or the Organization’s internal regulatory framework. Any clause purporting to do so is ultra vires, null, and unenforceable.
Signing such an agreement constitutes an express waiver of rights guaranteed under the Charter:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … and to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained.”
In light of binding jurisprudence confirming that such waiver clauses are ultra vires, null, and unenforceable, on what legal basis does the UN80 Taskforce , under your authority is promoting their use? What justification exists for requiring staff to execute instruments that, on their face, contravene established rulings of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal?
Why should staff repose confidence in the Secretary-General, the UN80 Taskforce, or the senior officials directing this initiative, when the clauses in question have already been judicially determined to be incompatible with the Organization’s regulatory framework and the fundamental principles of the administration of justice?
Demand for Immediate Remedial Action
I call upon you, the Secretary-General, and the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs to:
• Immediately cease and desist from the use of such waiver clauses in all UN80 separation agreements, with effect from the date of this correspondence.
• Provide a formal, written undertaking that no staff member shall be required, induced, or coerced, directly or indirectly, to execute any instrument purporting to waive or extinguish rights which the United Nations Dispute Tribunal has expressly determined to be protected under the Organization’s regulatory framework.
• Initiate a comprehensive legal review of all ongoing separations being negotiated under such terms to determine their compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Standards of Conduct, and binding Tribunal jurisprudence, and to take corrective measures where non-compliance is established.
The administration of justice constitutes a binding legal obligation under the Charter and applicable jurisprudence; it is not subject to discretion or convenience. The continuation of this practice will further erode staff trust, compromise the integrity of the Organization’s internal justice system, and place the Secretary-General in breach of his duty to uphold and defend the Charter.
Respectfully,
Nadine Kaddoura Founder CERTIORARIS; and; former United Nations senior staff
As USGs and ASGs shield themselves behind UN80 to settle scores and terminate staff under the guise of budget cuts and restructuring, the United Nations Office of Human Resources (OHR) has gone a step further. In a calculated effort to insulate themselves from future appeals and avoid paying higher awards before the UNDT and UNAT, they have opened the door to “early separation packages,” enticing staff to depart voluntarily rather than litigate.
On paper, this is framed as an option. In practice, it is a legal trap.
Staff are being invited to sign away their rights, including ongoing complaints or pending cases against the Organization, under the pretext of “budgetary necessity.” OHR is well aware that while staff have only a marginal chance of prevailing before the Tribunals when separations are justified by genuine budget cuts, the current targets are not incidental redundancies: many include staff with active conflicts, harassment claims, or pending accountability proceedings against senior officials.
The construct is deliberate: frame the separation as ‘voluntary’ while embedding a waiver clause of such sweeping breadth that it extinguishes all present and future claims, thereby foreclosing judicial recourse and insulating the Organization from liability for misconduct, however egregious.
This provision is set out verbatim in the UN80 agreement:
“I agree to withdraw all claims and appeals I may have pending against the Organization, and I will make no further claims or appeals against the Organization arising from my terms of appointment or separation from service with the Organization. In addition, I acknowledge that as at the date of this agreed termination, I have no further claims against the Organization;”
Staff Beware.
just a few days ago, on 11 August 2025, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a landmark judgment,Melbiksis v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2025/053) the first of what I believe will be many, in which UNHCR relied on a similar “no-sue” clause to block receivability. The Tribunal ruled:
“Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s three misconduct reports are not covered by the settlement agreement, including its no-sue clause.
The Tribunal notes that if a no-sue clause of a settlement agreement was to be extended to cover all future misconduct reports of a releasor (in the present case, the Applicant) concerning a releasee (UNHCR), the risk would be that any rejection of a misconduct report regarding, even very serious, disciplinary offences could subsequently be shielded entirely from judicial review.
Creating such a culture of impunity defies the fundamental principle of access to justice and would not be in the best interest of the Organization.”
A Culture of Impunity.
This is precisely what UN80 is institutionalizing.
The UN’s abuse of such clauses was already exposed earlier in 2023 in Shahwan v. Commissioner-General of UNRWA(UNRWA/DT/2023/018/Corr.01). UNRWA, in particular, is well known for its systemic and recurrent misuse of unlawful non-disclosure agreements and separation terms to silence staff and extinguish legitimate claims. In this case, the Tribunal condemned the widespread reliance on such separation agreements and NDAs, ruling:
“The agreed conditions at stake (sections 12 and 13 Separation Agreement) were therefore obviously violating the standards enshrined in the Standards of Conduct.
All individuals involved in the negotiations and consequent conclusion of the conditions in question should have been aware that the agreed conditions were not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and the UN.
The Tribunal finds that there is a hierarchy among the obligations in question. The Tribunal finds that, in general, obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member.
The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal.”
The legal principle is unequivocal: no private agreement, however artfully drafted or coercively negotiated, can lawfully displace obligations derived from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct, or the Organization’s regulatory framework.
Any clause purporting to do so is null, unenforceable, and contrary to the Organization’s foundational values.
Signing this agreement means knowingly waiving the very rights the UN Charter guarantees you:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … and to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained.”
If the Tribunal has already determined that such clauses violate the Organization’s own regulatory framework, why would you place your trust in the Secretary-General, UN80, and his senior team, the very officials urging you to sign what the law has found they cannot enforce?
In my latest article, I explore why organizations, in this case study- UNESCO (and those in positions of authority) so often dismiss requests they deem excessive, when in fact these are routine, legitimate needs of long-serving staff, often entangled in complex personal circumstances. In doing so, the institution exposes itself to avoidable disputes and unnecessary litigation, all of which could have been averted with a more thoughtful and humane approach.
In my experience, two principles have grounded my approach to leadership and decision-making, especially in difficult environments.
First, regardless of rank or years of service, every colleague has something valuable to offer. Even those perceived as “dead weight“, a term I categorically reject, often carry within them a particular strength, insight, or passion that has simply been overlooked or underused. The key lies in identifying that niche: the area where each person is uniquely competent. I’m not speaking here about technical skills (those can be taught, acquired, replaced). I mean the subtler, often underappreciated strengths: interpersonal fluency, team adaptability, resilience in solitary roles, the need for structured routine, or a talent for chaos management. Some are neurodivergent, some need visibility, others prefer to work behind the scenes. Some need the stability of repetition; others need to be pushed into uncharted territory to thrive.
Leadership, contrary to popular management mantras, is not about “teaching” people to be different versions of yourself. That’s where things unravel. Leaders who obsess over moulding their teams in their own image fall into the predictable trap of coercive control. It begins with good intentions: coaching, “capacity-building”, a push for “standards” and ends in abuse of authority. The unspoken logic: if someone doesn’t conform to my version of performance or behaviour, I have the right to marginalize them or push them out.
Second, understanding the personal context behind performance requires more than professionalism: it requires empathy. And yes, compassion. Because work, while central to identity, does not suspend a person’s lived reality. Over time, people evolve; their private lives evolve with them. Health issues, family demands, losses, transitions: all of these bleed into the workplace whether leadership chooses to acknowledge them or not.
Too many conflicts in the workplace stem from a refusal to understand this. Leaders who lack the emotional intelligence to accommodate the realities of life outside the office will inevitably generate resistance, frustration, and yes too often litigation.
In a recent series of striking International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) judgments involving UNESCO (Nos. 5052–5056, 140th session), a long-serving P-5 staff member, after nearly three decades of service, was abruptly placed in the mobility scheme. At the time, he was undergoing a divorce and had shared custody of his minor daughter, which legally and logistically made relocation impossible. He submitted a request for deferral, citing these personal circumstances and referencing provisions in the HR Manual that allowed for such exceptions. The request was rejected without meaningful consideration.
From there, things unfolded in a way that was entirely disproportionate, but all too familiar. His post was placed in the mobility pool, and he was reassigned to Brazzaville. When that posting fell through, due to lack of host government approval, he was sent to Kingston. At no point did he refuse outright to take up the assignments. He asked for time, a short and reasonable delay to resolve matters related to his child. This was consistent with established practice and far from an exceptional request.
Instead of responding with a degree of flexibility or basic empathy, the administration treated his request as a refusal to comply and moved straight into disciplinary mode. But there was nothing to investigate: no misconduct had actually taken place. He had submitted a legitimate request to defer relocation, based on personal and legal obligations. Rather than engage with the substance of that request, management bypassed internal oversight procedures entirely. The required preliminary review by the internal oversight division never took place. No effort was made to establish whether there was any factual basis for disciplinary action, because the facts were already known and undisputed. There was no misconduct, only a difference in approach: one side asking for time, the other insisting on immediate compliance. Yet this administrative disagreement was escalated into a charge of insubordination, without even the basic procedural safeguards that a disciplinary process requires.
The senior staff member was placed on special leave and given a clear ultimatum: withdraw his internal appeals or lose his job. When he refused to capitulate, the administration followed through and terminated his appointment for alleged insubordination. The ILOAT later reviewed the case and found the entire process fundamentally flawed. The administration had bypassed its own rules, ignored the requirement for an independent investigation, and failed to meet even the minimum procedural standards for disciplinary action. The dismissal was annulled. Beyond the procedural violations, the Tribunal went further and acknowledged what the staff member had been documenting for years: a pattern of decisions and actions that amounted to institutional harassment.
Which brings us back to the central question: what could have possibly propelled the Executive Director into this kind of aggressive, adversarial stance?
Why turn a routine deferral request into a disciplinary battle? Why not pause, reflect, and acknowledge that these were genuine personal circumstances requiring a proportionate, human response?
The staff member was not challenging authority; he was simply asking for time, yet the request was recast as defiance and rapidly escalated into a full-blown disciplinary conflict.
I find it hard to believe that people begin their careers this way.
Most do not.
It is often the system itself: the absence of consequences, the unchecked authority, the culture of protecting the institution at all costs that distorts behaviour over time. The UN’s structural tolerance for impunity rewards those who bulldoze their way through dissent, override discretion, and reframe perfectly reasonable staff concerns as insubordination. Some may well have climbed the ranks by doing just that. Others may have lost their bearings along the way. But the end result is the same.
Real leadership requires the ability to see others. Many lead, but very few actually see the people they lead.
They manage outputs, they push directives, they meet deadlines, but they stop engaging with the human beings carrying the weight of the organization.
That’s where leadership breaks down. Leadership doesn’t collapse because of flawed systems or poorly written policies pr performance metrics, rather it collapses when those in charge stop recognising the people in front of them.
Which brings us to the second scenario: when leaders fail to see the value of their staff simply because they occupy a lower grade. Locked into a rigid hierarchy and their own assumptions about who is worth listening to, they operate on the belief that no one at a junior level could possibly offer insights more relevant or more useful than their own. When that mindset takes hold, the outcome is rarely constructive.
Instead of engaging, these leaders take offence. They don’t take the time to assess what is being said or consider whether it has merit. Instead, they react defensively, as if their position has been challenged. The conversation ends there. What follows is not a reasoned assessment of competing views, but a retaliatory move against someone they consider to have overstepped. Once again, what we see is a pattern of egocentric leadership where self-perception overrides sound judgment. And once again, it fails.
ILOAT Judgments No. 5057 and No. 5058 (K. v. UNESCO) perfectly capture this leadership failure.
The case concerned a long-serving G-3 level security officer at UNESCO, employed since 2002. As part of his duties, he also served as a trainer for other security staff in the use of “intermediate defense equipment,” including batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray. These certifications were initially granted following a 2016 training by an external provider and were subject to renewal every year(or every three years in the case of trainers).
Between March 2018 and October 2019, the staff member sent several emails to his supervisors, flagging the failure to organize mandatory refresher trainings, which had resulted in the expiration of the required licenses for several security officers. This created operational uncertainty within the unit, with some staff discontinuing use of the equipment, and others continuing to carry it while unsure of their legal authority to do so.
Instead of addressing the issue substantively, the administration issued the staff member a downgraded performance review, accusing him of exhibiting inappropriate behaviour and poor communication. He then filed a complaint for retaliation, which UNESCO dismissed at the preliminary review stage. The Ethics Advisor concluded that his reporting of expired weapons certifications did not constitute a protected activity under the organization’s rules.
The ILOA Tribunal disagreed, and in strong terms. It found that the staff member’s reporting of safety and compliance concerns regarding defensive equipment did fall within the scope of protected activity, even if the underlying issue resulted from deliberate internal decisions or inaction. The Tribunal emphasized that:
“The fact that the alleged breach of rules was the result of a management decision does not, in itself, exclude the possibility that reporting such a breach constitutes protected activity.”
This directly contradicted the Ethics Advisor’s logic and revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes whistleblowing or protected disclosures. The Tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the retaliation complaint was unlawful, and that the complainant had suffered moral harm as a result of the premature closure of his case without proper investigation.
The Tribunal also noted that UNESCO did not contest the factual basis of the staff member’s claims: the licenses had indeed expired, and the required trainings had not taken place. Yet, rather than engage with the substance of the concern: operational safety, legal risk, and staff uncertainty, the organization focused its efforts on discrediting the messenger.
This second case illustrates the same failure from a different angle: one rooted in hierarchy and ego. Here, the staff member wasn’t in a senior role. He was G-3 level, a security officer. But he knew his work, and he raised legitimate, operational concerns about the expiry of weapons certifications and the risks of having security personnel uncertain about their authority to use defensive gear. He flagged it calmly, through internal channels, over a sustained period. And yet, rather than acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, even the Tribunal called it “worrisome”, his supervisor took offence.
Because the feedback came from someone at a lower grade, it was treated not as input but as interference. The issue was never evaluated on its own terms and instead was buried under performance reviews and process language. His communications were suddenly labeled inappropriate, his tone scrutinized, and the focus shifted from the substance of what he was saying to the discomfort it caused his supervisor.
This is the kind of reaction that plays out when leadership becomes entangled in its own rank, title, and entitlement. And once again, it fails. What followed was a series of retaliatory actions under the cover of formal processes. The failure here was the inability to recognize that valid concerns can come from any level, and that leadership requires the ability to engage with what is being said, regardless of who says it.
In both cases, the outcome was the same: escalation, legal defeat, and reputational damage. All of it avoidable.
What’s difficult to reconcile is the gap between the values the UN and the wider humanitarian sector claim to uphold, and the behaviours that are tolerated, and at times rewarded, at senior levels. This is a non-profit environment. By definition, our work is meant to be grounded in higher principles: dignity, justice, integrity, inclusion. Unlike the private sector, where abuse and retaliation are often concealed behind NDAs and threats of blacklisting, our legitimacy depends on the consistent application of the very values we put on our posters, in mission statements, and in every new cycle of leadership and behavioral competency frameworks. But these values cannot just exist on paper or in strategy rollouts. They have to be seen in how we treat people every day.
So if you’re in a leadership role, the one question worth asking is this: do you actually see the people around you? And if you do, in what light?
Leadership begins with the ability to see the people in front of you. If you can’t do that, then what exactly are you leading?
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:
….
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.
To keep this Undertaking and the communications regarding this Undertaking confidential.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trigger Warning: This content discusses sensitive topics, including sexual harassment, grooming, pedophilia, and abuse of authority. Reader discretion is advised
A Judgment Detached from Reality
On 11 November 2024, the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) issued a final judgment in the case of Sandi Arnold vs. the Secretary-General of the United Nations Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1477. That judgment is itself the final blow in the face of justice within the UN and highlights the systemic corruption of senior officials at UNHQ. The judgment, astonishingly, has little connection to the reality it purportedly addresses because by the time it was issued, Sandi Arnold had already been dismissed by the UN the previous year. How can this be?
Arnold, a long-term UN staff member, was implicated in a series of deeply troubling incidents during her tenure, yet senior officials, including an Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) at UNHQ, actively shielded her from accountability. The allegations against her ranged from sexual harassment to abuse of authority, and even extended to grooming and pedophilia. Yes, you read that correctly.
A Series of Troubling Allegations
Prior to joining UNMIK, Arnold served as UNRWA Deputy Director of Operations in Syria, where the first allegations of sexual harassment against her emerged. According to former UNRWA sources, Arnold organized informal outings, including taking local female staff members to a hairdresser on Saturdays for what appeared to be casual social gatherings. However, these events reportedly escalated into instances where Arnold made sexually suggestive remarks and allusions. Distressed by her behavior, the female staff lodged internal complaints. Arnold was quietly asked to leave Syria immediately.
She was subsequently reassigned to UNHQ in New York, and by February 2017, she had secured the role of Chief of Mission Support (CMS) at the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) at the D-1 level position.
The allegations against Arnold began surfacing in 2019 when the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) received multiple reports of her misconduct. Among the most disturbing incidents was the gifting of sex toys to female colleagues. According to the judgment, Arnold purchased a sex toy during a trip to New York and later gifted it to a subordinate. The judgment noted that this act “transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of her subordinate” and carried the potential to “negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization”.
Over the following year, 15 additional complaints were filed, painting a deeply troubling picture of her behavior. Arnold frequently referred to colleagues using offensive nicknames based on physical characteristics or national origins, such as “Choo Choo”and “Ju Ju Eyes.”The judgment highlighted that this practice “created a significant risk of dividing staff on national origin” and was deemed patently inappropriate in a multicultural workplace.
Her bullying tactics further compounded the harm. In one incident detailed in the judgment, Arnold shouted at a subordinate during a printing task, hurling expletives and saying,
“Will you f…ing print the policy itself?” When dissatisfied with the result, she escalated to throwing the document at the staff member and shouting repeatedly: “F….you, f*** off, go f*** yourself.”
This incident, corroborated by multiple witnesses, left the subordinate deeply humiliated and caused significant emotional distress.
One particularly distressing account revealed that Arnold’s repeated bullying led a staff member to contemplate suicide. The judgment noted that her behavior “violated the minimum level of civility expected in the workplace” and had a devastating emotional toll on her victims . The CMS was undeniably an abusive leader whose actions caused significant harm to her colleagues, leaving many emotionally devastated and others nearly broken beyond repair.
A System That Shields the Powerful
Arnold was placed on administrative leave with full pay in January 2022 while OIOS finalized its investigation. When OIOS finalized their investigation which took almost two years *while the CMs was on full pay- great use of member states funds again btw- they sent the report to OHR for action. Incredibly, rather than addressing the gravity of these allegations with decisive action, the UN’s disciplinary response was appallingly lenient.
The United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) both reviewed the case. The UNDT confirmed that the CMS’s actions constituted misconduct. The judgments emphasized the failure to maintain the dignity of staff and the damage inflicted on the UN’s image. As the UNDT noted: “The CMS’s actions violated the standards expected of a senior leader, crossing professional and personal boundaries, and creating a hostile work environment.”
The UNAT upheld these findings, dismissing the CMS’s appeal and affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary measures. Yet, rather than terminating her employment, the disciplinary measures imposed consisted of a written censure (the lowest disciplinary measure under Chapter |X of the rules) and an administrative measure of a mandatory managerial coaching for one year.
The Role of Senior Officials: Protecting the Perpetrator
This leniency was not accidental.
According to multiple sources, a high-ranking ASG at UNHQ intervened on Arnold’s behalf, ensuring the disciplinary measures were minimal and shielding her from the full consequences of her actions.
Emboldened by this interference, Arnold not only avoided severe repercussions but also appealed the disciplinary measure to the UNDT, launching a determined fight to clear her name.
Meanwhile, her victims were left terrorized and paralyzed, fearing further retaliation at every turn. Rather than seeking to restore integrity and foster a safe, supportive environment in UNMIK, the ASG’s actions prioritized protecting the interests of one individual: Sandi Arnold.
This interference not only undermined the credibility of the UN’s disciplinary and accountability system but also sent a chilling message to victims of abuse within the organization: their suffering is secondary to the careers of those in power.
Can anyone truly imagine what it feels like to be in the shoes of these victims? What values would they believe in after enduring this nightmare?
And so, with this deal sealed, Arnold’s suspension was lifted, and she was incredibly allowed to return to work on 3 October 2022.
The emotional toll on her victims was nothing short of catastrophic. Three staff members reportedly considered suicide, while several others required ongoing treatment to cope with the trauma inflicted under her leadership. Feeling abandoned and unprotected, and fearing further retaliation, many of her victims made the decision to leave the mission altogether. The repercussions extended far beyond the workplace, impacting their families as well. The toxic environment fostered by Arnold’s actions, combined with the UN’s failure to respond effectively, compounded the distress and left a lasting scar on the personal lives of those affected.
Unspoken Crimes? Allegations of Grooming and Pedophilia?
What happened next is shockingly absent from both the UNDT/UNAT judgments and any subsequent public decisions.
Allegations of grooming and pedophilia surfaced. Reports emerged that Arnold had allegedly groomed the children of staff members and taken them on private trips under highly suspicious circumstances, raising serious concerns about her conduct. Despite these numerous allegations and staff members fleeing the mission, Arnold was allowed to return to work.
She continued in her role for almost a year and a half, wreaking havoc and causing a severe emotional toll on her victims. Then, in November 2023, she was suddenly dismissed.
The Office of Human Resources (OHR) did not provide any explanation, and there is no official document detailing the reasons for her termination.
Those chilling allegations beg the question: how could the UN’s senior management at UNHQ allow such behavior to continue unchecked? How could they permit such a CMS to return to work, further exacerbating the harm to staff and their families?
By reinstating Arnold despite these unresolved allegations, the UN effectively prioritized the interests of an ASG—who was reportedly a friend of Arnold—and their own bureaucratic agendas over the safety and well-being of its staff. This decision, made under the guise of procedural fairness, trampled on the basic principles of accountability and justice. The silence and inaction of senior officials at UNHQ is as damning as the misconduct itself.
The Scars of Injustice on Victims
Arnold’s final dismissal in October 2023, after years of reports and investigations, underscores the UN’s systemic failure to act decisively against misconduct. This failure is starkly contrasted by the profound emotional toll and the devastating impact on the mental health of staff members, many of whom required ongoing treatment or chose to leave UNMIK entirely.
Such outcomes stand in sharp contradiction to the Secretary-General’s much-publicized system-wide strategy on mental health, which claims to prioritize the well-being of UN personnel. How can this strategy hold any credibility when the actions—and inactions—of senior management so blatantly undermine its very purpose?
A Corrupt and Broken Disciplinary Process
This case is emblematic of a critical, yet deliberately obscured, problem within the UN’s investigative and disciplinary processes.
Senior officials’ interference in disciplinary matters undermines the organization’s credibility, leaving victims without justice while emboldening perpetrators.
The OIOS investigation, which dragged on for over two years, highlights the inefficiencies of a system that prioritizes procedural delays over meaningful and substantive outcomes. The UN must confront the systemic failures exposed by this case and hold accountable the senior officials who failed all these victims.
Unfortunately, a culture that tolerates such egregious misconduct and allows it to persist unchallenged will only serve to embolden further perpetrators, perpetuating harm and eroding trust in the organization.
