Category: Recruitment and Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you read that right.

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

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

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

And it gets worse.

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

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

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

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

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

But she wasn’t finished.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Another gem from the interview evaluation sheets:

“Sucking up”

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

The tribunal found interalia, that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hosali appealed to UNAT.

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

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

Hosali won.

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

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

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

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

Reneging on their own rules, their own laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the answer is quite simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You speak of dismantling systems.

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

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

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

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

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

You call for dismantling systems.

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

Watch this space.

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

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

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

If You’re a Senior Internal Female Candidate from the Global South, 2025 is Not Your Year for Advancement in the UN

A recent UNDT judgment Hosali vs Secretary general of the United Nations UNDT/2024/017 exposes the extent to which the UN manipulates recruitment processes to disadvantage internal candidates, particularly women from the Global South, in favor of external candidates with zero experience within the organization.

Consider this: In December 2014, the General Assembly adopted resolution A/Res/70/133, expressing serious concern about the lack of progress toward 50/50 gender balance at all levels within the UN system, particularly at senior and policymaking levels. The resolution called on the Secretary-General to redouble efforts, specifically focusing on women from developing countries, unrepresented Member States, and those from the Global South.

Fast forward ten years, and these concerns remain unaddressed. Staff from the Global South are marginalized. Female staff rarely ascend beyond P-5 levels, while senior D-1 and D-2 roles remain predominantly occupied by men, especially from the Global North. Worse, the UN is bypassing long-serving internal candidates with institutional knowledge in favor of external candidates with no experience in the UN.

How can this happen?

The Case of Mita Hosali vs. the Secretary-General

Mita Hosali, an Indian national, has dedicated over 40 years to the UN, starting her career in 1982 and eventually rising to D-1 as Deputy Director of the News and Media Division (DGC). She has been a cornerstone of global communication strategies and embodies the diversity and institutional knowledge the UN claims to value. She was the only D-1 female staff member from the Global South in her department at the time of her application for the D-2 Director position in DCG.

Despite being deemed qualified and recommended for the post, the UN selected an external British male candidate with no UN experience. This candidate, with over 30 years in Associated Press (AP), has a professional background exclusively in journalism, with no prior experience in the UN or its operational frameworks, internal protocols, or values.

Gender Parity, Geographical Diversity, and Career Advancement—Empty Slogans in the Face of Nepotistic Recruitment

Recruitment in senior positions rests on three principles the UN claims to champion: gender parity, geographical diversity, and career advancement. These principles are not just UN ideals—they are core commitments frequently reiterated by the Secretary-General and enshrined in General Assembly resolutions, including GA resolution 70/133.

Despite these lofty commitments, the  selection of the male British candidate trumps all these principles. It defies the explicit provisions of GA resolution 70/133, which calls for urgent progress toward gender parity, particularly for women from the Global South, and emphasizes the need for equitable geographical representation. Furthermore, it undermines the UN’s stated commitment to internal career development by bypassing a long-serving, highly qualified internal candidate in favor of an external candidate with no prior UN experience.

This decision lays bare the contradiction between the UN’s public advocacy for these values and its actual recruitment practices, which often prioritize favoritism and external preferences over fairness and institutional integrity.

1. Manipulating Gender Parity: The UN’s Deceptive Tactics

The Administration claimed that gender parity provisions outlined in ST/AI/2020/5 (Temporary Special Measures for Gender Parity) did not apply to D-2 positions. This reasoning is both technically and substantively flawed. The ST/AI specifically recalls General Assembly resolution 70/133 and mandates:

  • Goal: “Until the goal set by the General Assembly is realized throughout the United Nations Secretariat, in every entity, overall and at each level, the temporary special measures described in the present instruction apply to all types of posts and positions, irrespective of the source of funding.”
  • Scope: “The temporary special measures contained in the present instruction shall apply to selections and appointments at each level at which gender parity has not been reached within the entity. The temporary special measures shall apply at all times when there is no such parity.”

At the time of Mita’s application, there was no gender parity in DGC at the D-2 level. Therefore, by the ST/AI’s own terms, temporary special measures should have applied.

The Administration argued that the ST/AI was inapplicable because it mentions “Central Review Bodies” (CRB), which oversee recommendations for selections up to D-1 positions, but not the “Senior Review Group” (SRG), responsible for D-2 and above. This distinction was used deceitfully.

Nowhere does the ST/AI explicitly exempt D-2 positions. Should the legislator have intended this ST/AI to apply only to Professional levels up to D-1, the relevant paragraph on “Scope” of the ST/AI should have explicitly mentioned this limitation. The fact that it was not mentioned under the Scope paragraph makes it clear that it applies to all levels, in line with the spirit of the Secretary-General’s system-wide strategy on gender parity. The Administration and UNDT exploited this technicality to evade accountability.

2. The Global South Left Behind: The Myth of Geographical Diversity in the UN

The Administration also cited geographical balance as a justification for the selection. However, the appointment of another male candidate from the UK—a WEOG country—only exacerbates the existing imbalance. The UNDT judgment confirmed that DGC’s leadership already had two British men at the D-1 level, and the addition of a third from the same region hardly contributes to diversity. Astonishingly, the selection panel described this appointment as “a positive for diversity,” despite it consolidating an already overwhelming overrepresentation of WEOG nationals.

The UNDT judgment laid bare the systemic bias in geographical representation within DGC at the time of Mita’s application:

  • 100% of senior hires were from the WEOG group.
  • 67% of senior hires were male.
  • Mita was the only D-1 female from the Global South in the department.

This hiring pattern reflects a troubling trend. While the UN claims that India is within its “desirable range” for representation, this metric is misleading. The “desirable range” system prioritizes financial contributions and population size over equitable representation at senior levels. It also fails to account for the persistent barriers faced by women and individuals from the Global South. 

As the judgment noted,

“the statistics provided by the Applicant, and not contested by the Respondent, indicate a pattern on the part of [the USG] for recruitment of [Western European and Others Group, ‘WEOG’] candidates.” At the time of the decision, this amounted to a “100% record of recruiting WEOG candidates and 67% record of recruiting males.”

The Tribunal itself recognized the imbalance:

” the figures and statistics on the gender and geographical balance at the D-1 and D-2 levels of the Department of Global Communications speak for themselves”

Adding to the absurdity, the selection panel claimed the British male candidate’s appointment was “a positive for diversity,” despite his addition to a division already dominated by British men. This statement underscores the hypocrisy of calling such a decision “a positive for diversity” when it flies in the face of the UN’s purported commitments to geographical balance and equitable representation at senior levels.

3. Abandoning Its Own: How the UN Turns Its Back on Internal Talent

The UN’s preference for an external candidate over Mita, despite her institutional knowledge and decades of service, reflects a troubling trend. Long-serving staff like Mita possess a deep understanding of the UN’s culture, operations, and values, making them indispensable for continuity and effective decision-making.

No one exemplifies this better than former Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan began his UN career at the P-2 level and rose to the highest office, proving that internal expertise is invaluable for leadership. His journey underscores the importance of nurturing in-house talent, a principle the UN seems to have abandoned.

The decision to select an external candidate with no prior UN experience over a highly qualified internal candidate like Mita contradicts the organization’s commitment to internal career development and institutional knowledge. It sends a disheartening message to long-serving staff, particularly women and individuals from the Global South, that their contributions and expertise are undervalued.

A Bleak Outlook for Women from the Global South in the UN

We all know New Year’s resolutions often fail, but who knew General Assembly resolutions could be just as hollow?

The selection of an external male candidate from the Global North over Mita Hosali demonstrates that the UN’s pledges on gender parity, geographical diversity, and career advancement are little more than decorative statements—meant to inspire but never acted upon. It lays bare the organization’s systemic failures in recruitment, exposing a culture that prioritizes favoritism and external appearances over fairness, integrity, and institutional loyalty.

If you’re a woman from the Global South aspiring to a D-2 role in 2025, the message is clear: Don’t bother.

On Impropriety in Recruitment and Selection Processes, Misrepresentation and Referral for Accountability .

What is the entire point of administration of justice in the UN if referrals for accountability are not implemented? and what is the role of member states, donors and other stakeholders?

The large number of appeals filed in #internationalorganizations jurisdictions in cases of recruitment and selection speaks volume about the dissatisfaction of staff with the lack of #transparency and #fairness in recruitment processes. 

These appeals fail for a simple reason: for management to win, they are required by the Tribunal to minimally show that “…a candidate was given a full and fair consideration…then the presumption of law that official acts have been regularly performed stands satisfied.”   

In more simple terms, if a candidate was shortlisted and interviewed, most of the time, it is more than enough to prove that the process was regular (even when most of us know that it was not). 

What happens then?

Nothing.

Let us leave aside our frustration with this minimal legal requirement for a while and concentrate on a more compelling scenario:

What happens when a staff member was able to prove that the entire process was not only irregular but also a total fraud? What are the legal implications when other candidates misrepresent their qualifications on official application forms? 

And most unusually, what happens when a Director of Human Resources who is entrusted with the highest responsibility of safeguarding the integrity of the recruitment process and compliance with fairness and transparency, is the one who authorized, paved the way, certified and approved such a process? 

Well, strangely enough, also nothing.

In a judgment issued this week by the #UNRWA Dispute Tribunal, the Judge held the following:

“The Director of Human Resources (DHR) is ex officio member of the ACHR (Appointment/CR bodies), which discussed the Selected Candidate’s failure to meet the required qualifications at length, including that she had never served in the post of Investigator… The Tribunal thus finds that the DHR must have known that the Selected Candidate had misrepresented her qualifications. However, he not only failed to take steps to disqualify her from the recruitment process,he took the extraordinary measure of recommending her appointment to the Senior Field Investigator post at the Grade 17 level.” (equivalent to P-3).

The Tribunal cannot but conclude that the Director of Human Resources failed to identity the wrongly composed interview panel and recommended for appointment a candidate who had misrepresented her qualifications. 

Considering the serious nature of the flaws in this selection process…the case will be referred to the Commissioner General for accountability..”

What is the entire point of administration of justice in the UN if referrals for accountability are not implemented? and what is the role of member states, donors and other stakeholders?

Watch this space next with a follow-up post on implementation of referrals for #accountability based on real data from the UN.