Category: Retaliation

Do You See the People You’re Leading?

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?

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

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

Three bombshell findings before we dive into the details:

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

But that’s not all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Tribunal plainly stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s when the real operation began.

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

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

And that’s exactly what happened.

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

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

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

That’s it.

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

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

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

Private Discourse is Not Misconduct.

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

The Tribunal itself noted:

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

Even more pointedly:

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

There it is.

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

Let’s go a step further.

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

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

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

And it gets worse.

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

The Administration refused.

The excuse? OIOS’s operational independence.

Let that sit for a moment.

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

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

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

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

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

But even here, the Tribunal pushed back hard:

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

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

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

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

Read that again.

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

They just dismissed it.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their so-called ‘offense’? 

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

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

It’s simply outrageous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shielding Misconduct: How OIOS and the SG Weaponize Operational Independence

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

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

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

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

Exculpatory Evidence Suppressed: The Case of the Hidden OIOS Reports

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

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

Pension Fund Scandal: Retaliation Against Whistleblowers Dressed as Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Warnings Ignored: Negative Inferences and UNAT Precedents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Demand for Reform, Not Empty Promises


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

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

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

How OIOS, the Controller, and a weak UNDT order on interim measures will force a long-term serving D-2 Director out of the United Nations.


A committed long-term serving United Nations senior staff, Mr. Anthony O’Mullane, Director at the D-2 level in the Office of Information and Communications Technology (OICT), is facing a malicious scheme to marginalize and ostracize him under the pretext of the illustrious “restructuring exercise” in retaliation for having denounced financial irregularities in the UN Secretariat.


Once a senior staff member dares to denounce another one, in this case, the Controller (whose position in the United Nations is untouchable), the United Nations war machines will be unleashed upon him. In Mr. O’Mullane’s case, his crime was that he dared to question financial irregularities, a duty entrusted to him as a senior staff of the Organization.

He also dared to file appeals against OIOS and the Controller.

And so the Secretary-General’s war machine was launched.


First, a restructuring exercise must be hastily prepared and documented through various piles of memoranda and Excel sheets to preempt any possible subsequent allegation of retaliation and to liken the shady exercise to a legitimate one before the UN Dispute Tribunal.


Second, instructions are promptly communicated to OIOS not to initiate any fact-finding or investigations into Mr. O’Mullane’s complaints despite the seriousness of his allegations of “possible noncompliance of the United Nations Controller with United Nations financial rules and regulations” and the second one relating to “harassment and abuse of power.”


Judgments on the two appeals are unlikely to see the light before the end of 2024/2025.

In the meantime, the Secretary-General’s management team and legal counsels aim to tighten the leash on Mr. O’Mullane.


He will be reassigned, marginalized, hammered, pressured, and finally shown the door under yet another Non-Disclosure Agreement.


A staff member must satisfy three cumulative requirements for interim measures to be granted. As it happens, the staff member cannot even succeed in proving the first requirement, which is to demonstrate the particular urgency of the case.

Reviewing all the jurisprudence since 2010, the Tribunal has rarely granted a motion for interim measures simply because its requirements are unattainable for any staff member, and the threshold is too complex to reach.


The legal counsels know this and use it to the Secretary-General’s advantage.


In Mr. O’Mullane’s case, the Secretary-General’s legal counsels had only to draft one sentence to convince the duty judge to reject the motion for interim measures:

They referred to an email trail to show that internal restructuring discussions had already been taking place since at least late 2022 while the appeals of Mr. O’Mullane were filed in July 2023. In other words, the Judge said that

“the restructuring plan was initiated before the filing of the applications. The fact that the restructuring exercise, including the reassignment of the Applicant, has been under discussion for many months tends to show that this is a matter of self-inflicted urgency. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the Applicant has failed to show that this is a case of particular urgency.”

And so it goes.

The case is disposed of in less than one argument.
The urgency is self-inflicted!


As if all staff members do not know by now the maneuvering of senior management and their restructuring exercise. There is no case of an appeal filed before a restructuring exercise simply because the staff member does not have the deceitful, secretive restructuring plans that aim to eliminate them in the first place.


By the time Mr. O’Mullane proves the unlawfulness of this restructuring exercise and the retaliation and harassment against him, he will have been ousted or, at best, completely isolated.


Enough of disposing of dedicated senior staff like you would dispose of expired merchandise on shelves.


Mr. Secretary-General, your People are at the Core of the United Nations.
Without them, the United Nations will disintegrate.


The principles of adversarial fairness and transparency require that staff members demand that the Secretary-General immediately order an independent investigation to look into Mr. O’Mullane’s allegations of financial irregularities and the claims of harassment and retaliation against him.

Omullane-order-ny-2023-097Download

Trumping Accountability in the United Nations: How the Secretary-General and a Failed Oversight Mechanism Keep Shielding Misconduct of Senior Appointees.

Silence in the face of the abuse of power.

You are a Director at the D-1 level.

You have served the United Nations with excellence, dedication, and passion for twenty years.

You just returned from maternity leave while still nursing your daughter.

You are assigned a new supervisor at the Assistant Secretary-General level.

You are harassed, bullied, and abused by your supervisor, the Assistant Secretary-General. 

image courtesy of NPR and The InCap

Drained, you go on sick leave. Sleepless nights, nightmares, burnout zone… 

You are immediately reassigned to a useless post.

You become marginalized, isolated, and ostracized. 

Not content with the marginalization, the Assistant Secretary-General, aided by the Under-Secretary-General, decide to abolish your post. 

So they make you an offer destined to guarantee your termination: an immediate reassignment, but this time, to a different continent. 

Newborn, family, home. You try hard but know you can’t, so you refuse.

You relapse, and your mental health suffers, so you take another sick leave. But no one cares. 

You ask for protection against retaliation, but the Ethics Officer reports to your harasser, the Assistant Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General and his Senior Management Team are so busy advocating for their duty of care, mental health, and well-being strategies that they decide to fire you while on sick leave with a three-day notice. 

So you fight back.

You file four appeals to the ILO Appeals Tribunal.

The Assistant-Secretary-General was under investigation.

You are informed that the Assistant-Secretary-General was nominated for promotion to the Under-Secretary-General level. You ask the Tribunal to request a vetting of the ASG for this position since she was under investigation.

The ILOAT says it’s none of their business. 

Journalists ask the Secretary-General’s Spokesman about the promotion under investigation. Still, the Spokesman proudly confirms that the Assistant-Secretary-General  “has the full backing of the Secretary-General, who very much appreciates her work, especially her leadership of the UN system-wide task force on combating sexual harassment.”

The process for appointments of USGs is still very much governed by the same lack of transparency, lack of merit, and shady deals between member states and the Secretary-General, who continues to violate Article 101 of the UN Charter, which requires him to ensure the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity in the employment of the staff.

And so it goes.

The Assistant-Secretary-General was promoted to the Under-Secretary -General for Management role. 

The former USG of UNAIDS, under investigation, issued an official press statement congratulating the ASG for her promotion to the new Under-Secretary-General for Management role and describing her as “a leader who gets results for people” adding that he will miss her “good humor and sound advice.”

In the meantime, you have been terminated.

You are fighting alone, suffering alone.

Your four appeals are still pending before the ILO Administrative Appeals.

Resorting to the system of administration of justice takes years. 

So when asked by journalists, your harasser (the former ASG) denies any allegation of harassment and bullying and refers to the thorough IOS investigation, which found all the allegations unsubstantiated.

Then, the truth starts to come out.

Slowly but surely…

First, the Report on the work of the Independent Expert Panel on the prevention of and response to harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse of power at the UNAIDS Secretariat finds that

The leaders, policies, and processes at UNAIDS have failed to prevent or properly respond to allegations of harassment including sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power in UNAIDS. The evidence before the Independent Expert Panel of a broken organisational culture is overwhelming.

UNAIDS is governed in a way that has produced a vacuum of accountability. The leadership of the UNAIDS Secretariat fails to accept responsibility for a culture of impunity becoming prevalent in the organisation, a culture that does not ensure a safe and dignified workplace for its staff, and one that fails to respect huma rights in line with law and United Nations values.”

The report further found that the Head of UNAIDS was responsible for fostering a cult of personality and patriarchal management and that he had “enabled a culture of harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power.” 

Following the independent expert panel’s report, the former USG of UNAIDS resigned immediately.

Then, the first ILOAT judgment (4240) was issued on 10 February 2020.

With respect to the improper reassignment decision, the Tribunal found that the reassignment caused the complainant “stress, distress, physical exhaustion, humiliation and adversely affected her career.”

A second ILOAT judgment (4241) was also issued on 10 February 2020.

Concerning the harassment, gaslighting, mobbing, and bullying allegations that the ASG subjected the complainant to and which, she had consistently denied in public statements, the ILOAT found that

 “the actions taken by or on the orders of the former ASG were liable to offend and humiliate the complainant. Moreover, in the Tribunal’s view, a reasonable person would have found the actions offensive and humiliating.” 

The former ASG ought reasonably to have known that those actions would have offended and humiliated the complainant, interfered with the complainant’s ability to carry out her work, and created a hostile work environment for her, thus constituting harassment in the terms set out in the Policy.”

The Tribunal also found a lack of fairness, objectivity, and impartiality during the investigation process because the IOS did not interview the witnesses whom the complainant suggested, and all the witnesses initially interviewed were staff under the supervision of her alleged harasser.

The Tribunal noted that the IOS’ report and recommendation to close the harassment case were flawed.

The ILOAT noted that the evidence presented was sufficient to permit the Tribunal to determine that the complainant’s harassment complaint was well founded and that the former ASG’s actions “created a hostile work environment” for the complainant.

What did the Secretary-General and his spokesman have to say about this?

Nothing.

Then, the third ILOAT judgment (4599) was issued on the 1st of February 2023.

The ILOAT found that the reassignment and termination processes were flawed and unlawful. 

The Tribunal compensated the complainant for the adverse effects that the unlawful reassignment and termination decisions had on her career, including but not limited to stress, distress, physical exhaustion and humiliation.

On the same day, the ILOAT issued its 4th and final judgment (4600).

The ILOAT examined the complainant’s claim to consider her illness as service incurred since it was directly caused by the harassment that the ASG subjected to her.

“The Tribunal found that the organization failed to ensure a healthy work environment and to protect the complainant’s health.

In the circumstances of this case, the organization breached its duty of care to the complainant when it rejected her claim for compensation for her service-incurred illness in the face of the overwhelming evidence, including four favourable medical reports, and its failure to ensure a healthy work environment to protect her health.”

First, you are reassigned, then you are ostracized, then you are demoted, then your post is abolished, then you are redeployed and ultimately, you are terminated.

This is the story of Sima Newell.

Where are the Secretary-General and his Spokesman? 

Nowhere to be seen.

The Secretary-General is the Chief Admin Officer of the United Nations.

His prerogative is to ensure that senior staff meet the highest standards of merit and accountability and that those who contravene the applicable governance norms must be held accountable.

And yet, he never does so.

The practice of the Secretary-General turning a blind eye to the misconduct of his senior staff is a grim reminder that the culture of impunity in the United Nations will continue to prevail in the name of higher political interests. 

Silence in the face of the abuse of power. 

Deafening silence. 

Where is the former Assistant Secretary-General?

Following her controversial promotion to the Under-Secretary-General for Management post in the UN Secretariat, she has subsequently joined the International Development Law Organization Director-General (IDLO) as its new Director-General.

In between, she is busy discussing with the Pope her shared commitment to advancing #justice #ruleoflaw #genderquality and supporting the most vulnerable.

Meanwhile, ahead of the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly debate, the Secretary-General briefed the reporters and delivered another outstanding quote:

“This is not a time for posturing or positioning… Action is what the world needs now… People are looking to their leaders for a way out of this mess… If we want a future of peace and prosperity based on equity and solidarity, leaders have a special responsibility to achieve compromise in designing our common future for our common good”

Indeed. 

Practice what you preach, Mr. Secretary-General.

The Classic One.


What happens when you’re a female staff member, sexually harassed by supervisors who abuse their authority for three years, and Administration does nothing to protect you?


NOTHING.


The Story started in February 2020.


Female staff member.


Sexually harassed by her supervisor.


Submits official complaints of sexual harassment and abuse of authority to OIOS and Conduct and Discipline Unit.


Is immediately placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) by her supervisors.


Is threatened on the same day by the Chief Mission Support Center during a dinner that her PIP would be “dropped” if she withdrew her complaint against her two supervisors.


Unbearable work environment and too much to bear and stay sane.


Goes on Certified Sick Leave.


Submits a request for protection against retaliation to the United Nations Ethics Office.


Is denied protection by the Ethics Office. We are in December 2021.


Extends her sick leave. Work environment is not safe to return to.


Submits a request to review the Ethics Office’s decision before the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel of the United Nations.


Is suddenly reassigned from her duties as Chief of the Unit by her supervisors and replaced by another staff member.


Requests management evaluation of the reassignment decision and reiterates her request for protection from retaliation from her supervisors.


Her first and second supervisors continue to supervise her.


The Alternate Chair of the Ethics Office ruled in her favor with a prima facie case of retaliation and recommended her protection from her supervisors. We are in April 2022.


Despite the Ethics Office prima facie finding, the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy, and Compliance accepted the MEU’s recommendation that her reassignment was lawful and did nothing to reverse the decision or to protect her.


Left to her own protection, she applies to and is selected for a temporary position as Logistics Officer at the P-4 level at the United Nations Regional Service Centre in Entebbe.


Her supervisor (the perpetrator) refuses to release her, stating that her role was crucial.


Together with the First Reporting Officer, they finalize her performance evaluation report. We are in May 2022.


She is still on Certified Sick Leave and too afraid to return to work.


Her contract is suddenly extended for one month only.


She writes back to the Ethics Office, alerting them of the contractual issue.


Two years and a half after she first complained about sexual harassment and abuse of authority against her supervisors, the Chief of HR finally suggested in July 2022 to offer her a placement in a different section with different reporting lines.


She returned to work in July 2022.


A year later, on 9 June 2023 and three years and a half after the Story started, Judgment UNDT/2023/048 Guimaraes was issued.

Let us read one excerpt…


The Tribunal noted

“… with concern that the Administration, notwithstanding such a serious accusation (in particular, that one of sexual harassment by Mr. John) and the zero-tolerance policy it follows in the matter, did nothing to protect the Applicant after her complaint, leaving her instead subjected to the same reporting line, which had at the top the Applicant’s SRO, that is the alleged sexual harasser of the Applicant.

Indeed, both the FRO and SRO, although accused by the Applicant, remained in their positions, and continue to manage the Applicant’s working relationship, assessing her ePAS, deciding to put her on a PIP, and finally deciding her reassignment.”


Let us read a second excerpt.

“The Tribunal stresses the abnormality of a situation where an officer accused of serious misconduct (like indubitably sexual harassment is) can continue exerting powers towards the complainant. While it can be admitted that the accused officer remains in office till the investigation confirm the accusation, from the moment he is aware of the accusations he is in a situation of conflict of interest which imposed on him the obligation of abstention, refraining from any administrative act which involves or can impact, even indirectly, the complainant.

Let us read a third excerpt.

“The Administration, who receives the complaint of sexual harassment, must immediately not only investigate the facts (or close the case, communicating the closure to the complainant), but in any case, pending the case, intervene to prevent the accused from exerting his managerial powers towards the complainant; this obligation is larger than that one of the accused person and starts from an earlier moment, operating even during the period the accused person is not aware of the complaint.

It is clear in the rules that the existence of a conflict of interest undermines the powers of a manager to take decisions.


In the case at hand, the Administration –which had the obligation to ensure that any known conflict of interest could have no room in the management of the work relationship- should have put a remedy to the situation and intervened since the moment the complaint for sexual harassment was filed by the complainant.”

What happened to the perpetrators who committed the sexual harassment and abuse?


Nothing.

What happened to the Administration that failed to protect the staff member and failed to provide the minimum duty of care?


Nothing.

What happened to the USG, who blindly followed MEU’s classic upholding decision?


Nothing.

What happened to the female staff member?


She went on sick leave, humiliated and threatened by a hostile work environment that affected her mental health and well-being. She was scared and vulnerable, had constant fatigue, had chronic headaches, insomnia, self-doubt with a pessimistic approach to her work and life, and was probably scarred for life …

Oh, and by the way, UNDT awarded her 3 months’ net salary at the P-3 level for all this anguish…and suffering...

Guimaraes-undt-2023-048Download

You Are Not Protected

Most of the time, retaliation is exacerbated during the investigative process. In the meantime, perpetrators are free to act according to their whims. Not surprisingly, by the time an investigation is launched by OIOS, the perpetrator most often a senior official, resigns.



On #ProtectionfromRetaliation #Impartiality and #Accountability

Since its establishment in 2006, the UN #Ethics Office failed to protect staff from retaliation for reporting misconduct or for cooperating with audits/investigations. Protection against retaliation is one of the key functions of the Ethics’ Office. The root cause of this failure can be traced to the existing structural and organizational deficiencies of many inter-dependent #UnitedNations entities.

Firstly, the head of the Ethics Office is appointed by the Secretary-General and is accountable to the SG. Not impartial and not independent. Secondly, at its best, the Ethics Office can make a finding of prima-facie case of retaliation, however, it does not have any power to investigate. The only power it has is to refer the case to OIOS for investigation. 

Turning to OIOS. The USG of OIOS is appointed by the SG and is also accountable to the SG. Not impartial and not independent. Normally, OIOS investigations take about a year or two. Thirdly and more importantly, when and if OIOS establishes retaliation, it  can simply refer the case to the Office of Human Resources, which will ultimately make a decision of whether or not to initiate the appropriate disciplinary process. 

Procedural details aside, let’s take a closer look at what this means for your everyday international civil servant. 

Though staff are given the option for interim protection measures, they are rarely protected.

Worse, most of the time, retaliation is exacerbated during the investigative process. In the meantime, perpetrators are free to act according to their whims. Not surprisingly, by the time an investigation is launched by OIOS, the perpetrator most often a senior official, resigns.

There goes your #accountability framework.

Nowhere is this more dismayingly reflected than in UNAT’s judgments this week in the case of Fosse No. 2022-UNAT-1310 and No. 2022-UNAT-1305.

“Ms. Fosse’s appeal raises an increasingly common issue of what happens to such complaints when, as occurs not infrequently, the person complained against leaves the Organisation following the making of a complaint but before its conclusion.”

The systemic failures of the principle of good governance and accountability and the role of the Ethics Office are accurately depicted in paras 21 and 22 of Judgment 1305.

“21. The Ethics Office concluded that retaliation had not been established. It noted moreover that the Executive Secretary had resigned and … there was no continued need for the interim protective measures..”

“22. The Ethics Office, however, recorded that…this did not mean that no misconduct had occurred; nor did it condone the behaviour of the Executive Secretary. It therefore recommended to the Secretary-General that he consider placing a note on the official status file of the ES indicating that she separated from service during a retaliation investigation… “



#UnitedNations #internationalorganizations

Your document has finished loading

Click to access 2022-UNAT-1310.pdf