Middle East Eye published another article yesterday, largely summarising a legal opinion by Abdul Koroma, a former International Court of Justice judge, shared with ICC member states earlier this month. The core message of that opinion is straightforward and a direct threat.
It tells ICC member states: if you remove Khan, he will appeal to ILOAT, his chances of winning are considerable, and you should be prepared to pay him over a million dollars in compensation.
Koroma then concludes that the bureau should adopt the panel’s report and close the matter. If this is not a direct attempt to influence the outcome of an ongoing investigation, I do not know what is. And it is precisely the kind of pressure campaign that only one party, in this case, has the institutional weight, the network, and the resources to orchestrate, and now a former ICJ judge writing legal opinions on his behalf and international media platforms amplifying them on cue. Clearly, one party has everything. The other has nothing.
Koroma’s opinion raises serious problems, both in its legal reasoning and in its purpose. And MEE’s decision to give it a platform and amplify it to a global audience raises equally serious questions about editorial judgment. Let me take them one by one.
First, Koroma apparently believes that the prospect of compensation at the tribunal should deter ICC member states from pursuing this case. He should know better. Since when has the prospect of losing at tribunal ever deterred international organisations, and particularly the UN, from taking the worst decisions against staff?
I have personally heard an ASG fire a staff member in retaliation and say, with complete indifference:
“Let them go to the Tribunal! What can they do? The maximum they can get is two years’ salary.”
That is how these senior officials view the administration of justice: as a cost of doing business, not as a deterrent. The compensation is not paid from their own pockets. It is paid from assessed contributions of member states, who, last time I checked, have never lost sleep over a tribunal award.
Koroma now suddenly invokes that same system as a warning to those same member states. The irony would be amusing if the stakes were not so serious. And one more thing: where was Koroma when genuine whistleblowers were retaliated against, went to the tribunal, won, and were never reinstated or adequately compensated? We did not see him wave the threat flag then. We did not see him write seven-page legal opinions warning member states about the cost of wrongful termination when it was other staff members on the receiving end. The answer is simple. Koroma defends Karim Khan. Heavy weights defend heavy weights. They are not interested in the voiceless.
Second, what Koroma is arguing, stripped of its legal dressing, is this: do not pursue a case of alleged serious sexual misconduct against the prosecutor because if he appeals, you might have to pay him a million dollars.
Let that sink in.
He is suggesting, whether intentionally or not, that the financial exposure to the organisation should be weighed against the decision to pursue accountability for alleged abuse.
That is not a legal opinion.
That is a message to the bureau that the price of justice is too high. And on the numbers themselves, one million dollars is not the extraordinary figure Koroma and MEE are presenting it as. ILOAT, UNDT, and UNAT regularly order two years’ salary for wrongful termination. Take two staff members at P5 or D1 level and you are already at a million dollars. This is everyday business for these organisations. It has never stopped a single USG or ASG from terminating staff they wanted gone.
That bar is exceptionally high and rarely met. Koroma presents it here as a likely outcome rather than a solid legal assessment. It is a number designed to frighten member states that may not be experts in international administrative law. Koroma and MEE need to be more careful about playing out these exaggerated narratives to a public that is not necessarily versed in the jurisprudence they are selectively invoking. The difference is that when compensation is awarded to common staff, nobody writes a seven-page legal opinion about it.
Third: MEE’s sensational headline is misleading, and I am afraid deliberately so.
The rules of ILOAT, UNDT and UNAT are unambiguous: if a termination is found to be unlawful, the tribunal is mandated to order reinstatement. That is not a scoop and is not a threat. That is the standard rule of procedure that applies to every single international civil servant across every UN tribunal, from the P2 clerk to the G6 assistant to the D1 director and yes, the ICC prosecutor. That is not a special privilege of Karim Khan. That is the baseline.
To craft a headline like “ICC could be ordered to reinstate prosecutor if it removes him” is to present as a revelation what is in fact the standard procedural outcome for any staff member whose termination is found unlawful. His case would look very much like any other. The only difference again is that when it is a common staff member, nobody writes about it or asks MEE to run a front page story about it.
What MEE and Koroma are deliberately omitting is the other half of that rule: in the entire jurisprudence of UNDT and UNAT, with the exception of one local staff member at G6 level, not a single staff member has ever actually been reinstated despite a tribunal ordering it. And contrary to what Koroma argues, there is absolutely zero chance of the prosecutor being reinstated even if he prevails on appeal.
If a decision is made to remove Khan and he appeals, the ICC will immediately appoint a new prosecutor. The jurisprudence of all international tribunals is clear on this: organizations must be able to continue their mandate even when a staff member has been wrongfully terminated. If every termination required waiting for the conclusion of legal proceedings before filling the position, these organisations could not function. That is precisely why they always elect payment in lieu of reinstatement; they fill the position immediately after the incumbent leaves, and it is legally near impossible to strip a new incumbent of a binding contract for a legal dispute they were not party to. The same would apply here without any question.
Organisations consistently elect payment in lieu of reinstatement and that is everyday business for them. It has never stopped a single USG or ASG from removing staff they wanted gone. To frame the standard tribunal remedy of reinstatement as a sensational threat hanging over the heads of member states is exploiting the ignorance of the public in international administrative law , and exploiting the media once again to lead a public pressure campaign under the disguise of legal expertise.
Finally and this is the most important point, it is simply an affront to the dignity of the complainant and to every woman who has survived sexual harassment, abuse, exploitation and rape inside these institutions to even suggest that an alleged offender should simply walk free because the compensation bill might be high.
That is the logical conclusion of Koroma’s argument and MEE’s decision to amplify it without challenge.
Do they understand what their messaging says to every staff member inside these organisations who is weighing right now whether to speak up?
It says: his financial interests outweigh your right to justice.
It says: the price tag on his career matters more than what may have happened to you.
It Screams: Stay Silent.
Khan himself said in one of his interviews:
“If a process can be suborned, if it can be subverted, if it can be undermined, because state appointees and diplomats, for whatever reason, think they know better, then this is a template for getting rid of any elected official, now or in the future, on spurious or flimsy or fabricated or unfounded grounds.”
Fine words.
But what Khan is doing through Koroma and MEE is precisely that: attempting to suborn a process, to pressure member states, to shape the outcome of a live disciplinary proceeding through a sustained, well-resourced, highly networked public campaign.
The complainant has none of that. She has a confidentiality agreement and faces termination if she breaches it. Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute requires the prosecutor to be a person of high moral character.
Nowhere does it say that high moral character can be purchased with a legal opinion and an ultra-sophisticated media campaign.
Much has been written about the sexual misconduct investigation against Karim Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Since the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press broke the story in late October 2024, the narrative has been pulled in every direction, except, tellingly, toward the woman at the center of it.
The facts as we know them are these: a junior staff member, a Malaysian lawyer who worked directly under Khan’s supervision, a position he selected her for, accused him of repeated nonconsensual sexual contact across multiple countries over the course of 11 months. The ICC’s governing body commissioned an external investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). Khan took voluntary leave in May 2025 pending its conclusion.
According to testimony and documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press, the OIOS investigation identified evidence that Khan engaged in nonconsensual sexual contact. A panel of three judges then reviewed the OIOS findings and its recommendation was that they did not meet the threshold for “misconduct or breach of duty” under the ICC’s specific legal framework. Khan has since declared himself exonerated. The case, however, remains formally open.
That is the factual record. What followed in the media, particularly from Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera, is where things get troubling.
Almost immediately after the story broke, both outlets began framing the misconduct allegations not as a workplace abuse case but as a geopolitical attack: a Mossad operation, an Israeli retaliation campaign designed to neutralise the man pursuing Netanyahu’s arrest warrant.
Both outlets made a calculated editorial choice: anchor the misconduct story inside the larger narrative of a coordinated campaign to destroy the man prosecuting Israel at the ICC. The logic was straightforward and the target audience was clear: supporters of the Palestinian cause who have watched the ICC face unprecedented political pressure, and who are primed to read any attack on Khan as an attack on accountability for Gaza.
Within that frame, the misconduct allegations did not need to be disproven. They only needed to be contextualized: placed adjacent to enough geopolitical threats that reasonable readers would draw their own conclusions about motive and credibility.
The result was that both outlets prominently reported the judges’ panel’s conclusions while consistently burying or minimizing what the UN investigation itself found.
They reported on the pressure Khan faced, but did not meaningfully report on the woman who accused him. They gave their audiences a story about a prosecutor under siege. They did not give their audiences a story about the vulnerable P2 staff member whose account, according to documents reviewed by multiple serious news organizations, described a sustained pattern of abuse by the most powerful person in her professional world.
That is a choice. And it is worth being precise about what kind of choice it is.
The most egregious example: Al Jazeera published an op-ed by Sareta Ashraph Khan’s own legal counsel, arguing the case should be closed. The question worth asking is this: why did Al Jazeera decide that the right moment to publish a lengthy argument for closing the case was while the investigation was still actively ongoing??
Ashraph is Khan’s defence counsel. She is bound by a confidentiality agreement she acknowledges in the piece, which means she had access to the full evidential record: access that no journalist or civil society organization had in any equivalent public forum. Al Jazeera handed that platform exclusively to the prosecutor’s lawyer. The complainant, a P2 staff member still employed by the ICC and bound by her own confidentiality obligations, had no column in Al Jazeera. She had no column anywhere, because, unlike Karim Khan, who is an elected official and apparently exempt from the same constraints, she would face termination for speaking to the media.
Middle East Eye has functioned throughout this case as the outlet of first choice for Khan’s team whenever there is favourable information to place in the public domain. MEE broke the story of the judges’ panel clearing Khan on March 21, 2026 ahead of any official communication from the ICC or the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties. And here we are again: the Palestine investigation, the arrest warrants, the prosecutor as a man under siege. Because MEE, like Al Jazeera, has decided that his pursuit of the Gaza case is enough to rush to his defence, enough to clear him in the court of public opinion, enough to make the woman who accused him disappear from the story entirely.
And here is the question both outlets need to answer honestly: why is it so difficult to entertain the possibility that the ICC prosecutor may have indeed committed misconduct?
Why does his pursuit of the Palestine arrest warrants, which, let’s be clear, he was legally obligated to pursue on the evidence, not as an act of heroism, automatically render the allegations against him implausible? Here is also a fact the public is largely unaware of: Khan became ICC Prosecutor in 2021, yet took no meaningful action on the Palestine investigation for three years; an investigation that had already been opened by his predecessor, Fatou Bensouda. He issued the arrest warrants only in 2024.
The answer, I would argue, is that MEE and Al Jazeera do not understand how international organizations actually operate from the inside. And that ignorance has consequences.
What both outlets consistently failed to explain to their readers is how the OIOS actually operates. The OIOS is mandated to establish facts, supported by inculpatory and exculpatory evidence alike. It is not mandated to characterise those facts as misconduct or not. That characterization is explicitly the role of the higher authority: in this case, the three-judge panel, which is mandated to issue a recommendation.
So when Khan and his supporters point to the OIOS’s findings and claim none of them established misconduct, they are describing the OIOS doing exactly what it is mandated to do: establish facts, not reach legal conclusions. The legal recommendations were the panel’s job. And the panel’s recommendation was reached through a framework with no precedent, no existing rules, constructed specifically for this complaint. Khan himself acknowledged in his Zeteo interview that “things have been made up as you go along.”The judges did not say the conduct did not occur. They said the facts as established did not meet the legal threshold under that framework. That is not exoneration but instead is a legal characterisation and a highly specific, highly contested one: fifteen bureau states voted to disregard the panel’s findings entirely and pursue their own assessment of the evidence.
Once the panel’s recommendations became public, Khan broke his silence
In his interview with Mehdi Hasan on Zeteo on April 29, 2026, his first public appearance in nearly a year, he cited the OIOS’s 137 findings, claiming that not a single one contained a determination of conduct that could be characterised as inappropriate in any way. When Hasan pressed him directly, Khan denied any sexual relationship with the complainant flatly and any kind of relationship with her.
In that same interview, Khan made it very clear that in his view the evidence threshold for genocide in Palestine has not been met. After everything the world has witnessed in Gaza, documented, filmed, reported, livestreamed in real time for more than two years, the ICC prosecutor reached for careful, measured, lawyerly language. No crime is “off limits if the evidence is there.” The evidence, apparently, is never quite there. If he is capable of that level of precision and evasion about what Israel did in full view of the entire world, one should not be entirely surprised by the sophistication of what he has constructed in his own defense. A man who can look at Gaza and find the evidentiary bar too high is a man who knows exactly how to use legal language to avoid accountability, his own included.
Middle East Eye, which has spent months defending this prosecutor as a champion of Palestinian rights and framing his misconduct case as an Israeli plot, must now sit with that answer. The outlet that rushed to publish his exoneration narrative before any official communication, which built an entire editorial architecture around his role as the great defender of Gaza accountability, that same outlet’s protagonist just told the world, on camera, that he is not prepared to call what happened in Gaza genocide.
But to understand why the judges’ panel recommendation is not the end of this story and why the bureau states who rejected it were not acting arbitrarily, one needs to understand how the UN’s own legal framework actually treats sexual harassment cases.
The standard that applies in both the UN Dispute Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal for serious misconduct cases, including sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and abuse of authority, is “clear and convincing evidence,” which is slightly below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold (a standard used for criminal cases and by ILOAT). That is a deliberately high bar, and for good reason: when termination is the likely outcome of a finding of serious misconduct, the process must be rigorous and the standard must protect against arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
That said, the application of that standard is where cases of sexual harassment and exploitation diverge sharply from other categories of serious misconduct. In fraud, in financial misconduct, in administrative abuse: the evidence is generally documentary. There are records, transactions, paper trails, and audit findings. The facts either add up or they don’t. Sexual harassment and sexual exploitation are entirely different matters. They happen behind closed doors, in hotel rooms, on official missions, and in offices. They happen without witnesses, and they happen without witnesses precisely because that is how this category of abuse is committed. The perpetrator’s position of power ensures the victim’s silence and the absence of corroboration. Applying “beyond reasonable doubt” to a sexual harassment case as if it were a financial audit systematically advantages the perpetrator.
This is why the assessment of sexual harassment cases is not a scientific, black-and-white exercise. It requires judges to consider context, weigh the credibility of both the complainant and the alleged perpetrator, examine power dynamics, examine the pattern of behavior, and make a qualitative judgment about what the evidence as a whole establishes.
That is precisely what the UN’s own internal jurisprudence recognized in a landmark judgment in Hallal v. Secretary-General, UNDT/2011/046, paragraph 55, which was affirmed on appeal in UNAT 2012-UNAT-207. The Tribunal held explicitly that credible oral victim testimony alone may be fully sufficient to support a finding of serious misconduct in sexual harassment cases, without further corroboration being required. The Appeals Tribunal confirmed that giving full evidentiary weight to the complainant’s oral testimony, absent documentary corroboration, was not an error in law. Because the Tribunal understood something the three-judge panel in the Khan case appears to have chosen to ignore: that in sexual harassment cases, the absence of corroboration is not evidence of absence. It is simply the nature of the crime.
Put simply: The UN’s own courts have recognized that requiring documentary proof in sexual harassment cases is sometimes unrealistic and unjust. Victim testimony, when credible, is enough.
And that, it seems, is precisely what fifteen bureau states could not accept. Rather than a contextual, credibility-based assessment that the jurisprudence both permits and requires, the panel delivered what appears to have been a clean, clinical, binary application of the beyond reasonable doubt standard and declared the matter closed. The states that voted to disregard the panel’s findings and pursue their own assessment were not, as Khan and his counsel have suggested, substituting political judgment for legal judgment. They were insisting that the legal judgment actually engage with the full complexity of what sexual harassment cases demand.
Article 42(3) of the Rome Statute, the very legal instrument under which Khan holds his office, requires that the Prosecutor be a person of high moral character. That is the legal condition of his office, full stop. Whether entering into any form of relationship (coerced or otherwise) with a staff member you personally recruited, directly supervised, and over whom you held absolute professional and institutional authority constitutes a breach of that standard is not a question that requires a criminal court to answer. It does not require 5,000 pages of evidence or three months of judicial deliberation. It requires an honest reckoning with what exploitation of institutional power looks like and the courage to call it by its name.
There is one dimension of this case that has received almost no serious coverage, and it is perhaps the most telling of all.
The complainant is still an active ICC staff member. She is bound by confidentiality obligations. She cannot speak publicly, give interviews, correct the record, or respond to the sustained and well-resourced public campaign that has sought to cast doubt on her credibility, including through her alleged abuser’s own legal counsel writing in the pages of Al Jazeera while the investigation remained open and ongoing.
Karim Khan, by contrast, is an elected official. He is not bound by the same confidentiality constraints. He can give hour-long televised interviews. His team can place favorable information with sympathetic outlets. His lawyers can publish op-eds in major international media. His counsel can speak to specialized legal publications. His side of this story has been told, retold, and amplified across multiple platforms in multiple languages. Hers has not been told at all because, if she spoke, she would face termination.
This is the power imbalance made visible. And it is worth noting that it is the same power imbalance that sits at the heart of the original allegations: a vulnerable P2 staff member, working in the most politically exposed prosecutorial office in international criminal justice, directly supervised by one of the most powerful elected officials in the international legal system.
Those of us who have spent years inside the UN system are not surprised by any of this. We have watched this film before. We know how it ends, or rather, how it is made to end.
Take the case of Martina Brostrom and Luiz Loures, then-Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS and Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations. Brostrom alleged that Loures sexually harassed her from 2011 onward and sexually assaulted her in a hotel lift in Bangkok in 2015 during a major UNAIDS conference. An internal investigation cleared him. Brostrom went public in 2018. Only then did Loures announce he would not seek renewal of his position, stepping down at the end of March 2018, with UNAIDS spokesman Mahesh Mahalingam carefully telling reporters that the decision had “no connection to the allegations.”
But Brostrom would not stay silent. She was brave enough to face the institution and name what had happened to her. And the institution went after her for it. The UN fabricated a case of financial and sexual misconduct against her, involving the man who would become her husband and the father of her children. She was fired in December 2019.
“This is what the UN does to women who report their sexual offenders,” she told CNN. “They just want to get me out of the organisation.”
The independent expert panel appointed to review the UNAIDS scandal found overwhelming evidence of a broken organisational culture and called for the replacement of top leadership. UNAIDS chief Michel Sidibé, faulted for attempting to quietly suppress the matter while an official probe was underway, eventually resigned. The second OIOS investigation into Loures concluded, and its findings were never shared with the victims or the public. To this day.
The parallel to the Khan case is precise. In both cases, an initial internal investigation cleared the senior official. The complainant faced institutional retaliation. The organization prioritized its own reputation over accountability. And the senior official seems able to walk away with his narrative largely intact, while the woman who spoke up had her career and credibility systematically dismantled.
Consider also what happened at UNRWA with the former Commissioner-General in 2019. The minute the misconduct report against him was leaked to the public, the reaction was instant and predictable: this was the Israeli lobby trying to bring down a man who had defended the Palestinian cause too vocally, too visibly, too effectively. And yes, the former Commissioner-General was a genuine defender of that cause. He was a good soldier for UNRWA’s mandate, and nobody should pretend otherwise. And yes, the Israeli lobby machine jumped on that report the moment it was leaked, with everything it had, determined to use it to finish him. That part is also true.
So is this: the misconduct was real.
It existed, it was documented, and it predated the Israeli campaign against him by a considerable period. The geopolitical attack came later. The misconduct came first. Those are two separate facts and the deliberate conflation of them, whether by design or by lazy analysis, served one purpose: to make the misconduct disappear inside the politics.
I know this not as an outside observer. I know it because I went through the UN machinery myself. Not for sexual harassment, but for doing what every staff member is told they are protected to do: speaking up against misconduct and abuse of authority, and then watching the full force of institutional retaliation come down in response. I challenged that machinery in a case of abuse of authority and retaliation at both the UN Dispute Tribunal and the UN Appeals Tribunal. I won both times. I know precisely how it operates because I made it answer for itself.
But I will say this plainly: I could do that because I knew the system from the inside, having spent twenty years within it. For ninety percent of staff who find themselves in the same position, the institution will destroy them long before they reach a favourable judgment. The process is the punishment. That is by design.
I know what that machinery looks like from the inside. I know its patience, its sophistication, its absolute determination to protect the institution and the powerful individuals within it at any cost. The USGs and ASGs who operate within it are not clumsy. They are not obvious. They are charming, credentialed, politically connected and ruthless. And they know exactly which levers to pull and when.
Brostrom was a skilled, dedicated, highly capable UN professional. She is also a woman. And the institution looked at those two facts and decided which one was more useful to weaponise against her. The same calculus is being applied to the complainant in the Khan case right now, in real time, by people who have persuaded themselves, or wish to persuade us, that they are defenders of justice.
Both MEE and Al Jazeera have done genuinely important work on Gaza, on the Palestine investigation, and on the immense institutional pressures bearing down on the ICC. That work matters and should not be dismissed. But what MEE and Al Jazeera and every external observer who reflexively reaches for the geopolitical explanation will never fully grasp is this: both things can be true simultaneously.
The Israeli lobby can exploit a misconduct case for its own ends and the misconduct can still be real. The two are not mutually exclusive. They never were.
MEE and Al Jazeera chose to treat this case as already settled. They chose to amplify the prosecutor’s narrative while the complainant was silenced. They chose to publish his lawyer’s defence brief as editorial opinion. That is a failure worth naming simply because justice for Palestinians and accountability for powerful men who abuse junior staff members are not mutually exclusive propositions. Choosing the geopolitical story over the accountability story is not analysis. It is a choice. And it has consequences for every person inside these organizations who is weighing, right now, whether speaking up is worth it. Any outlet that cannot hold both of those things at the same time is not covering the story. It is choosing a side.
The women inside these institutions who endure this, who weigh their careers, their contracts, their visas, their families against the decision to speak, deserve better than to be reduced to collateral damage in someone else’s political story by the outlets they read.
We know who they are. We have worked beside them. And we are not done talking about this.
The ISA has released a series of Joint Appeals Board (JAB) judgments addressing disputes arising from Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho’s January 2025 decisions. At the same time, an unlawful diplomatic note verbale has been circulated to Member States announcing the conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding against a staff member and the individual’s separation from service for alleged serious misconduct.
First, the publication of the JAB judgments does little to resolve the central concern raised in the article. A first-level review body (the JAB) that has been dismantled at the very moment staff members sought to challenge administrative decisions, and subsequently reconstituted under the authority of the very official whose actions it is supposed to review, cannot reasonably be expected to command confidence as an independent adjudicative mechanism.
Institutional justice systems in international organizations rest on a basic principle: independence from the administration whose decisions are under review. Where the administration dissolves the review body during active disputes and subsequently re-establishes it under conditions that raise legitimate concerns regarding composition, remuneration and structural dependence, the credibility of the mechanism inevitably comes into question.
The ISA Joint Appeals Board is not a judicial tribunal but a first-instance advisory body whose members are appointed within the institutional framework of the Secretariat. As such, it operates within the administrative structure whose decisions it is tasked with reviewing, a structural arrangement that inevitably raises questions about the level of independence such a mechanism can realistically provide.
Those concerns are further compounded by the remuneration framework reportedly introduced for members of the Board. Unlike judicial tribunals whose judges are appointed through formal intergovernmental processes and whose remuneration is determined by governing bodies such as the General Assembly of the United Nations Secretariat (for UNDT/UNAT), the payment structure for JAB members appears to have been established administratively and financed from within the very institution whose decisions the Board is asked to review.
In systems of administrative justice, independence does not depend solely on the good faith of the individuals involved; it depends on institutional safeguards that prevent even the appearance of administrative influence. Where the review body is appointed, organized and remunerated through mechanisms controlled by the same administration whose decisions are under challenge, the perception of institutional dependence becomes difficult to avoid.
A Justice System Without Independence
What makes this situation particularly striking is that the structural weaknesses of such peer-review mechanisms have long been acknowledged across the United Nations system itself. In its 2023 system-wide review of pre-tribunal appeal mechanisms, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) observed that many organizations continue to rely on peer review bodies composed largely of internal staff members rather than professional judges. As the Inspectors noted:
“most pre-tribunal appeal bodies are composed of staff members serving on a part-time basis who are not necessarily legally trained” (JIU/REP/2023/2).
The JIU report further warns that the institutional design of these mechanisms raises structural concerns regarding both independence and efficiency. As the Inspectors explain:
“the peer-review nature of many pre-tribunal bodies raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, delays in the process and the lack of professionalization of the review function” (JIU/REP/2023/2).
These concerns are not new. The report notes that several organizations within the United Nations system have already moved away from such peer-review models precisely in order to strengthen institutional safeguards. As the Inspectors observe:
“a number of organizations have already moved away from the traditional peer-review model towards more professionalized mechanisms in order to strengthen independence, legal expertise and the credibility of the review process” (JIU/REP/2023/2).
The United Nations itself undertook such a reform in 2009, when:
“the reform of the United Nations internal justice system in 2009 replaced the previous peer-review bodies with a two-tier tribunal system composed of independent judges” (JIU/REP/2023/2).
Recognizing these structural weaknesses, the JIU Inspectors further recommended that organizations strengthen the professionalism and independence of their pre-tribunal review systems:
“..executive heads should ensure that pre-tribunal mechanisms are adequately professionalized and supported by qualified legal expertise in order to improve the quality, independence and credibility of the review process”.
It was precisely these concerns that led the United Nations Secretariat to abandon this model in 2009. The UN replaced the former Joint Appeals Boards and Joint Disciplinary Committees with a fully professionalized two-tier judicial system composed of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, staffed by independent judges and supported by a professional registry and legal infrastructure.
Seventeen years later, however, several international organizations including the International Seabed Authority continue to operate internal justice systems that rely on variations of the very peer-review structure the United Nations itself concluded could not guarantee sufficient independence or credibility.
Against that broader institutional backdrop, the events surrounding the dissolution and subsequent reconstitution of the ISA Joint Appeals Board become even more troubling. A review body whose members are appointed within the Secretariat, whose functioning depends on administrative arrangements determined by the executive leadership, and whose remuneration is set and financed by that same administration, inevitably raises questions about whether it can function as a genuinely independent safeguard for staff members seeking to challenge administrative decisions.
Weaponizing the Publication of the JAB Judgments
The circumstances surrounding the sudden publication of these Joint Appeals Board judgments raise additional concerns that cannot be ignored.
First, the timing itself is highly questionable. Publishing judgments at this specific moment inevitably creates the impression that these decisions are being used not merely as legal documents but as instruments in an ongoing institutional and political debate.
Second, the publication occurs while the legality of the dismantling and reconstitution of the Joint Appeals Board itself remains under dispute and is currently subject to appeal before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Releasing judgments under these circumstances risks presenting contested findings as settled conclusions while the underlying institutional legality of the body issuing them remains under judicial review.
Third, questions have already been raised regarding the financial incentives introduced for members of the Board, arrangements that did not previously exist and which have already been criticised for potentially undermining perceptions of independence and impartiality.
There is also a basic procedural issue. Neither the Staff Regulations and Rules nor the JAB Rules of Procedure appear to provide any explicit legal basis for the publication of JAB judgments. In most international organizations operating Joint Appeals Boards, such decisions are not published at all. The absence of any governing framework regulating publication, anonymity or redaction leaves these matters entirely to ad hoc discretion.
This stands in sharp contrast to the United Nations internal justice system, where the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal are explicitly mandated by the General Assembly to publish their judgments in order to ensure transparency, consistency of jurisprudence and institutional accountability.
The sudden decision to publish selected judgments of the ISA Joint Appeals Board, a body that the Secretary-General herself dismantled and subsequently reconstituted, therefore raises obvious questions. Rather than serving transparency, the timing and selectivity of this publication give the impression of an administration attempting to weaponize a contested internal mechanism in what increasingly resembles a deeply unequal struggle between the Secretariat and the staff members it has chosen to forcibly remove.
In this case, the order authorizing publication appears to have been issued by the Chair of the JAB alone, without deliberation by the Board as a whole.
Equally troubling is the selective transparency surrounding the ISA’s internal jurisprudence. No JAB judgments or orders appear to have been published prior to 2025, leaving observers unable to assess how the newly constituted Board may have altered the jurisprudence of the body.
Concerns have also been raised regarding serious mischaracterizations of the factual record, including the omission from the judgment’s procedural history of the suspension of action proceedings that preceded the appeal.
Finally, the handling of redactions raises further questions. In the published judgment, the names of the Respondent and of a JAB member whose disqualification had been requested were redacted, while the names of the appellants appear unredacted throughout the document. Such asymmetry inevitably raises questions about the consistency of the Board’s approach to protecting personal identities and reputational interests.
Taken together, these circumstances strongly suggest that the publication of these judgments was not intended to enhance transparency but to advance a particular administrative narrative.
The Unlawful Note Verbaleto ISA Member States
In a striking new development, the Secretary-General has circulated a diplomatic note verbale to Member States announcing that a disciplinary proceeding has been concluded and that a staff member has been separated from service for alleged serious misconduct.
The timing of this communication also raises legitimate questions. The note verbale is dated 6 March 2026, only days before the opening of the International Seabed Authority Council meeting during the ISA’s 31st session.
Issued at such a moment, the communication strongly suggests that the Secretary-General is struggling to contain the governance crisis now unfolding within the Secretariat. Rather than restoring confidence in the organisation, the decision to circulate such a communication risks further eroding accountability within the ISA by disregarding basic procedural safeguards and publicly casting suspicion on individuals who have challenged or criticised the current management of the organization.
Such a communication raises profound procedural concerns.
Disciplinary proceedings within international organizations are governed by strict principles of confidentiality designed to protect both the integrity of the process and the rights of the staff member concerned. Publicly informing Member States of disciplinary measures taken against an individual staff member is not part of the established administrative practice within the United Nations system or comparable international organizations.
The circulation of a note verbale in these circumstances risks prejudicing the reputation of the staff member concerned while the individual retains a clear right of appeal through the organization’s internal justice mechanisms and, ultimately, before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.
In any system governed by the rule of law, disciplinary determinations remain subject to judicial review until the appeals process has been exhausted.
Communicating such information to Member States before that process has concluded raises the question of whether the purpose of the communication is administrative transparency or the premature public condemnation of an individual who retains legal recourse.
This concern is not merely theoretical.
The jurisprudence of international administrative tribunals has repeatedly addressed the consequences of public communications that damage the reputation of staff members before judicial review has taken place.
In that case, the Global Fund issued public communications announcing that a staff member had been terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The ILOA Tribunal (ILOAT) held that such conduct constituted an unlawful attack on the dignity and reputation of the individual concerned.
The Tribunal recalled the well-established principle that:
“International organisations are bound to refrain from any type of conduct that may harm the dignity or reputation of their staff members (Judgment 2861, under 91; see also Judgments 396, 1875, 2371, 2475 and 2720).
In this case, there can be no doubt that the announcement in the News Release and the statement in the 28 November 2012 letter that the complainant was terminated for unsatisfactory performance conveyed to readers that the complainant was incompetent and unfit to perform the duties of the Inspector General.
These communications were a serious affront to the complainant’s professional reputation and his dignity. The fact that the Global Fund sent an email to its staff members directing their attention to the News Release in circumstances where the complainant was not in a position to refute its contents further exacerbates the breach. It also constitutes a serious infringement of the complainant’s right to privacy. As stated in Judgment 2861, under 92, “[i]t is of the essence of a publication that reflects adversely on a person that it infringes on his or her privacy”.
The Tribunal concluded:
“The Tribunal concludes that there was no reasonable justification for stating in the News Release that the complainant was terminated let alone that he was terminated for unsatisfactory performance. In the circumstances, the Global Fund should have simply communicated the complainant’s departure in neutral terms, such as, an announcement that the complainant was leaving the Global Fund. “
The Tribunal ultimately found that the organization’s actions had caused:
“serious and irreparable harm to the complainant’s reputation and dignity and were a breach of his right to privacy.”
The Tribunal thus found:
“Based on the information provided to the Tribunal it is evident that the Global Fund’s actions in publishing the termination of the complainant’s employment and the reason for the termination and its refusal to remove the offending information from its website caused serious and irreparable harm to the complainant’s reputation and dignity and were a breach of his right to privacy.
This entitles the complainant to an award of moral damages as does the unlawful termination of his employment in the total amount of 150,000 Swiss francs.”
Further, the Tribunal ordered:
“Within seven days of the public delivery of this Judgment, the Global Fund shall remove the News Release from its website.”
This jurisprudence is directly relevant to the present situation.
By circulating a diplomatic note announcing the termination of a staff member for alleged misconduct while the individual retains the right to challenge the decision through internal justice mechanisms and judicial review, the administration risks creating precisely the type of reputational harm that international administrative tribunals have repeatedly condemned.
International organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity from national courts on the understanding that they provide staff with effective internal justice systems that respect fundamental due process guarantees.
Among those guarantees is the obligation to refrain from conduct capable of damaging the professional reputation and dignity of staff members whose legal remedies have not yet been exhausted.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the governance crisis within the ISA Secretariat remains unresolved. Rather than restoring confidence in the Authority’s internal legal framework, recent actions appear to confirm the deeper institutional concerns raised in the original article.
The lesson from that ILOAT judgment is difficult to miss: Carvalho’s hurried attempts to silence critics and whistleblowers do not make problems disappear; they simply transform governance failures into legal findings and mounting financial liabilities.
Before examining these developments, it is worth recalling why the International Seabed Authority matters.
Why the International Seabed Authority Matters
Most people have never heard of the ISA. That, in itself, is part of the problem.
The ISA is not technically a United Nations body. It is an autonomous international organization created under Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Yet it operates within the UN ecosystem, reports within the UN system, uses the UN’s administrative justice mechanisms, and is periodically subject to external audit, although those oversight mechanisms have so far appeared strikingly reluctant to confront the deeper governance failures taking place inside the organization.
And what exactly does the ISA govern?
The seabed beyond national jurisdiction. In the language of UNCLOS, the “Area” or the deep seabed that legally belongs to all humankind. The ISA is the body entrusted with regulating the exploration and potential exploitation of those resources.
ISA decides who who receives exploration licences.
ISA drafts the mining code governing seabed extraction.
ISA controls the pace or potential pause of deep seabed mining.
And the world is deeply divided over what should happen next:
On one side are states and corporate actors pushing to accelerate exploitation, arguing that seabed minerals are essential to the global energy transition.
On the other side are states calling for a moratorium or precautionary pause, warning that deep-sea mining could irreversibly damage ecosystems that science barely understands.
At stake is far more than mining policy. This is a geopolitical struggle over resource security, environmental risk, North-South equity, and control over the last remaining global commons.
The ISA sits directly at the centre of that fracture line. Which is precisely why governance at the ISA is not some minor administrative matter. It goes to the heart of who ultimately controls access to these global resources and under what rules.
An organization entrusted with administering the “common heritage of mankind” cannot operate with a collapsing internal justice system, budgetary irregularities, and unchecked executive power that expose serious failures in the way the ISA is currently being run.
Last year I published two articles documenting the unlawful acts carried out by the ISA Secretary-General.
Before turning to the serious developments that emerged in 2026, including a damning leaked internal note addressed to the ISA auditors, it is important to briefly recall the headline decisions taken by Secretary-General Letícia Reis de Carvalho since assuming office in January 2025.
Before her election in July 2024, Carvalho presented herself as the reformer who would bring transparency to an institution she suggested had long suffered from opacity.
“For me, the mission of the ISA and the leadership of the ISA is to be a trustee, an honest broker… It should offer transparency of its own procedures… If you are a trustee of the biggest commons on Earth, you cannot be called obscure or opaque in any way. We absolutely need practices that can turn things from opaqueness to transparency.”
Those promises collapsed almost immediately after she assumed office on 1 January 2025.
The Dismantling of the Internal Justice System
Within her first forty-eight hours, several staff members, many of whom had signed valid fixed-term contracts in December 2024 and had already entered on duty received abrupt termination letters informing them that the ISA would be “unable to complete the onboarding process.” Two additional staff members saw their contracts terminated under the guise of restructuring.These staff members were removed from their posts without reason, due process, or remedy.
As the affected staff filed urgent motions before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) seeking review of these decisions, the crisis escalated further. The Secretary-General dismantled the entire JAB structure, leaving staff without any functioning internal justice mechanism at the precise moment they needed it. In one of its orders on the Appeals, the United Nations Appeals Tribunal expressly noted in Order No. 2024-591 its:
“concern that the JAB was dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration,” observing that this had “denied staff members access to justice in the interim” and concluding that “the temporary void rendered meaningless the JAB suspension of action mechanism.”
At the same time the administration dismantled the JAB, the Secretariat moved ahead with recruitment to fill the very posts it had unlawfully vacated effectively foreclosing any realistic possibility of reinstatement before the justice process had even begun.
Five weeks later the Secretary-General appointed a new chair of the reconstituted JAB: Martha Halfeld, a former judge of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal and, significantly, another Brazilian national. The appointment placed a compatriot with appellate judicial experience at the head of the very body responsible for reviewing challenges to the Secretary-General’s own administrative decisions, raising obvious concerns regarding the structural independence of the mechanism. It became increasingly clear that accountability had little place in the new order taking shape inside the Secretariat.
A Damning Note to the ISA Auditors
On 12 February 2026, I, together with more than 200 other recipients, received a detailed internal note addressed to the International Seabed Authority’s external auditors. The document was later published online by Inner City Press.
The Note, which seems to have been written by internal technical experts, is a damning, comprehensive account of what appears to be a total systemic breakdown in the ISA’s governance framework.
The document identifies alleged serious violations touching virtually every pillar of institutional management: unlawful staffing decisions, concealed litigation liabilities, irregular recruitment practices, manipulation of the Assembly-approved staffing table, breakdown of internal financial controls, and extensive misallocation of budgetary resources.
One of the most immediate concerns relates to the litigation triggered by the Secretary-General’s January 2025 dismissals. More than fifteen employment-related cases have been filed before the Joint Appeals Board and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.
The note estimates the ISA’s potential legal exposure at approximately US$2.5 million, yet these liabilities appear not to have been disclosed in the financial statements despite the requirements of international public-sector accounting standards.
But the most disturbing revelations concern the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) itself.
Until 2025, members of the JAB served without remuneration. After dissolving the existing board, the Secretary-General reconstituted it with new members and introduced a payment scheme that had never been approved by the ISA Assembly.
Under this arrangement:
• the Chair of the JAB receives US$2,000 per case, • other JAB members receive US$500, • and the JAB Chair additionally receives a monthly stipend of US$1,000 while cases remain active.
None of these payments appear in the approved programme budget or the Finance Committee. None were formally authorised by Member States.
The obvious question for auditors is therefore simple: from which budget lines are these payments being financed?
Even more troubling is the structure of the remuneration itself. Because payments continue while cases are “in progress,” the system potentially creates an incentive to prolong litigation rather than resolve it.
The administration that triggered the disputes now finances the tribunal adjudicating them, through a payment mechanism it introduced itself.
Whistleblowers have also shared internal meeting minutes of the newly constituted JAB dated 6 February 2025, which shed further light on how this mechanism was reassembled.
During that introductory meeting, members acknowledged that this would be the first time JAB members would receive remuneration for their services at the ISA, a practice that had not previously existed.
Several members raised concerns about whether the payments had been approved by the Finance Committee and whether Member States had even been informed of the arrangement, noting that such matters would normally require transparency toward the ISA’s governing bodies. At least one member indicated that, because of national regulations governing public officials, they would need to consult their government before accepting any remuneration. The discussion itself suggests that the payment structure had been introduced without the usual institutional clarity regarding authorization or oversight.
The same meeting also confirmed that several urgent staff cases had already been forced to escalate to the United Nations Appeals Tribunal for interim relief during the transitional period, precisely because no JAB panel existed at the time to review them.
In other words, the ISA dismantled its internal justice mechanism at the exact moment staff needed it, then reconstructed it under conditions that raised immediate questions even among the newly appointed members.
The note goes on to document more than twenty deviations from the staffing table approved by Member States, including newly created senior posts, unilateral reclassification of positions, tailoring of vacancy annoucements and recruitment carried out outside established procedures.
Across the Secretariat, vacancy announcements were shortened, positions were filled through consultants performing staff functions, and individuals allegedly closely associated with the Secretary-General were rapidly appointed through processes that appear to have bypassed competitive recruitment.
Restructuring the Secretariat Or Consolidating Power?
The restructuring of the Secretariat was presented as an administrative exercise. In practice, it appears to have served a very different purpose.A recurring concern emerging from the Secretariat’s restructuring is the consolidation of power around the Secretary-General through a pattern of appointments that bypassed established recruitment procedures and favored former colleagues who worked with her at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi during Carvalho’s tenure there between 2019 and early 2025.
Several of the individuals brought into senior roles at the ISA appear to have worked directly with Carvalho at UNEP Nairobi during that period:
The person appointed as Chef de Cabinet (D-2) on 6 March 2025 previously served as Deputy Director of the Ecosystems Division at UNEP in Nairobi, where he worked in the same division as Carvalho between August 2022 and early 2025. Notably, the previous incumbent of the position (D-1) at ISA was abruptly terminated shortly after Carvalho assumed office. She then reclassified the post to D-2 since the new incumbent was already a D-1. That former staff member currently has several appeals pending before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.
Similarly, the Chief of Administrative Services appointed under the new structure also worked at UNEP between 2019 and 2024 as a change management consultant, during the period in which Carvalho held senior leadership roles there.
Another appointment concerns the Head of Strategic Communications and Global Engagement, hired as a consultant at a level equivalent to P-5, who previously served as Head of Biodiversity Communications at UNEP in Nairobi from 2009 to 2020.
In addition, an individual who served between November 2021 and January 2025 in communications and partnerships within UNEP’s Marine and Freshwater Branch, a unit previously headed by Carvalho, was subsequently appointed to a communications consultancy role at the ISA.
More concerning is that the former Registrar of the UN Dispute Tribunal in Nairobi which also serviced UNEP has now been appointed as a member of the newly constituted JAB.
Taken together, these appointments raise serious questions about whether the restructuring of the Secretariat has been used not simply to reorganize the institution, but to install a network of trusted former colleagues in key positions while circumventing the competitive recruitment procedures that govern international civil service appointments. The internal note addressed to the ISA auditors suggests that these cases are not isolated but part of a broader pattern of recruitment irregularities that unfolded across the Secretariat during 2025.
The Note document concludes that these practices amount to a systematic override of internal controls.
They are accompanied by allegations of payroll irregularities, improper payment of expatriate benefits to staff working remotely outside the duty station, misallocation of expenditure across budget lines, and the effective collapse of the segregation of financial control functions within the Secretariat.
At one point in 2025, a single official appears to have exercised responsibility for budget management, finance, and internal oversight simultaneously, a concentration of control that any basic public-sector audit framework would immediately flag as a governance red alert.
Budget appropriations, which are legally authorised by Member States appear to have been treated less as binding authorisations and more as flexible pools of funding to be rearranged after the fact.
When staff members of an international organization reach the point of repeatedly leaking internal documents, compiling detailed technical notes for external auditors, and attempting through every available channel to alert oversight bodies to what is happening inside their institution, it is rarely an act of opportunism.
More often, it reflects a last attempt to protect the organization itself when normal internal safeguards have failed. The level of detail contained in the note addressed to the ISA auditors strongly suggests that it was prepared by individuals with deep technical knowledge of the Authority’s internal operations who appear to be trying, in their own way, to prevent further institutional damage.
Member States cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the financial, administrative, and legal disorder now unfolding inside the Secretariat. At some point, the responsibility for restoring order does not lie with staff struggling to expose the problem, but with the governments that created the institution in the first place.
Institutions rarely benefit from ignoring the warnings of the people who know their internal workings best.
At the International Seabed Authority today, the opposite seems to be the case: governance is left scrambling to catch up with arbitrary decisions that have already been taken.
In other words, decide first and worry about governance later.
Following my recent post on “Inside UNHCR: Women Staff Speak Out”, I have now received additional correspondence sent to UNHCR senior leadership and the High Commissioner’s office.
This letter was sent to me by a group of women staff members working within the United Nations system. It was shared with me in confidence for publication after internal reporting channels were exhausted.
The correspondence raises deeply serious concerns regarding an alleged case of sexual harassment and violent workplace behaviour, reportedly supported by multiple testimonies, yet closed without sanctions while the victims remained exposed, unsupported, and at risk.
In today’s global climate where scandals are exposing how easily powerful men are protected by powerful systems, the United Nations should be expected to demonstrate a more active, victim-centred, and protective approach toward its own staff members who report sexual harassment and abuse.
What this letter suggests is the opposite: a system that appears to protect reputations and careers, while leaving those who spoke up to absorb the consequences alone.
Even more troubling are the concerns raised about the possible role of senior officials in enabling, legitimizing, or shielding the alleged misconduct, and about administrative decisions that may have preserved the employability of the alleged perpetrator.
The letter below is published in the public interest, with identifying information redacted to protect those involved.
Disclaimer: This letter is published at the request of its authors. I am not a party to the matters raised.
Following my open letter to the Secretary-General on Fabrice Aidan, we have received a minimal and highly partial answer through the Spokesperson of the Secretary-General during yesterday’s noon briefing at UNHQ. The response does not resolve the questions raised; instead, it introduces a contradiction that undermines the credibility of the UN’s position. The Spokesperson’s response is worth examining carefully and contains multiple inaccuracies, to say the least.
Question: My second question. There is a UN staff. His name is Fabrice Aidan, whose name had been mentioned several times in Epstein files. He was passing messages from UN email to Terje Rod-Larsen to Epstein. And you have received a letter, and the SG received a letter asking why he was not investigated. When some UN staff showed some sympathy for Palestinians, they were instructed…
Spokesman: Well, I mean…
Question: To be quiet. But this case…
Spokesman: Abdelhamid, it’s a very valid question, but I wish you’d get your facts right. Mr. Aidan is not a UN staff member. He was a French diplomat who was seconded to the United Nations from about 2003 to 2013. He resigned in April 2013. At the time of his resignation, there was a disciplinary process under way against him on a specific matter. Now like many people, I’ve looked at a lot of the Epstein documents, and I can tell you that obviously there was no way for us to be aware of, we don’t monitor staff’s emails, so we have no way of, or people’s emails, we have no way of knowing what people are doing with their emails. It is clear that looking at what was sent, it was violation of procedures to send from a UN email documents that he should not have been sharing outside of the UN.
Question: What about Terje Rod-Larsen? He was a UN staff, and you know he was. And… and also, Aidan was a UN staff, and he signed his letters as [cross-talk].
Spokesman: Right. But what is your point? Because I’m telling you, he has not worked in the United Nations since April 2013. He resigned. At the time of his resignation, he was under investigation. Mr. Larsen stopped being a full time UN staff member on 31 December 2004. He was then, when actually employed, or a dollar a year, envoy while he served as President of IPI. I can tell you that our focus and everybody’s focus should be on ensuring that everyone follows our procedures and, also, focused on the victims of Mr. Epstein.
The Spokesperson instructed the journalist to “get your facts right.” The facts are not in dispute. They are documented, public, and verifiable. What is in dispute is the UN’s attempt to reframe those facts through selective terminology and incomplete disclosure.
1- Seconded Personnel Remain Subject to UN Administrative Jurisdiction
The UN Staff Regulations and Rules explicitly contemplate secondments and arrangements whereby individuals serve within the Secretariat under a UN appointment while remaining linked to their government administration. In practice, these individuals receive an index number, occupy a post, exercise UN functions, and are subject to UN internal governance and conduct requirements.
A person seconded from a government does not become exempt from UN accountability simply because the salary originates elsewhere. A secondment does not create a parallel moral universe where UN ethics do not apply.
The UN itself has a clear administrative framework for this category of personnel. Accordingly, the attempt to present Mr. Aidan’s secondment as proof that he was “not UN staff” is misleading and has no bearing on the applicability of the UN’s Staff Regulations, Rules, and disciplinary jurisdiction.
2- The UN cannot deny staff status while invoking an internal OIOS disciplinary process
The Spokesperson’s answer collapses under its own weight in the very next sentence.
He claims Aidan was “not a UN staff member,” but then states:
“At the time of his resignation, there was a disciplinary process under way against him…”
An internal OIOS disciplinary process presupposes UN jurisdiction, and therefore UN staff status. Aidan was apparently not “not UN staff”, yet the UN confirms he was under an internal OIOS disciplinary process.
OIOS and the UN disciplinary framework exist to investigate alleged misconduct within the Organization and to ensure compliance with the Staff Regulations and Rules by staff members serving under UN authority.
Either Mr. Aidan was subject to a UN OIOS disciplinary process, or he was not.
The United Nations cannot simultaneously assert that an individual falls outside the staff system, while also confirming that the individual was subject to an internal OIOS disciplinary process. It presupposes UN administrative jurisdiction and applies to personnel serving under UN authority and bound by the Staff Regulations and Rules.
The UN cannot rely on the terminology of “secondment” to dilute or recharacterize accountability. Staff members seconded from government service or from other organizations remain subject to the UN regulatory framework, including the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Secondment is an administrative modality; it does not constitute an exemption from UN obligations, nor does it remove an individual from the Organization’s disciplinary jurisdiction.
Mr. Aidan was not operating in a vacuum. He was serving as a full-time P-5 official within the UN Secretariat under a letter of appointment reflecting his secondment from the French Government. That administrative detail has no bearing whatsoever on the applicability of the UN’s internal legal framework to his conduct.
3- The Spokesperson confirmed the breach of UN confidentiality procedures
In the most consequential part of the briefing, the Spokesperson expressly acknowledged that the material transmitted from the official UN email account constituted a breach of UN procedures. He stated:
“It is clear that looking at what was sent, it was violation of procedures to send from a UN email documents that he should not have been sharing outside of the UN.”
This statement amounts to a public confirmation by the UN Secretariat that the correspondence released in the Epstein files reflects an unauthorized disclosure of internal UN documents. the Secretariat itself has acknowledged that the conduct was incompatible with UN rules governing confidentiality and the handling of official information.
4- Terje Rød-Larsen: the UN’s own rules on gratis personnel prohibit precisely this conduct
The Spokesperson further attempted to neutralize Mr. Terje Rød-Larsen’s involvement by emphasizing that he ceased to be a full-time UN staff member on 31 December 2004 and later served as a “dollar-a-year” envoy while he served as President of IPI. This distinction is legally irrelevant. Whether staff or non-staff, Mr. Rød-Larsen was operating under UN authority and entrusted with access to sensitive information. The applicable obligations of confidentiality and discretion therefore remained fully engaged.
The Spokesperson’s explanation does not exonerate Mr. Rød-Larsen. On the contrary, it confirms that he continued to operate within the UN system under an engagement modality that falls squarely within the Organization’s administrative framework governing non-staff personnel.
The applicable instrument is ST/AI/1999/6 (Gratis personnel), which governs individuals serving within UN offices while not holding a standard staff appointment. The instruction is explicit: such personnel are bound by UN rules on confidentiality and are prohibited from communicating non-public information to external persons.
Section 11.2 of ST/AI/1999/6 provides:
“Gratis personnel shall exercise the utmost discretion in all matters relating to their functions. Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate official in the receiving office, they may not communicate at any time to the media or to any institution, person, Government or other external authority any information that has not been made public, and which has become known to them by reason of their association with the United Nations or the receiving office.
They may not use any such information without the written authorization of the appropriate official, and such information may never be used for personal gain. These obligations shall continue after the end of their service with the United Nations.”
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Mr. Rød-Larsen’s engagement was on a “dollar-a-year” basis, the UN’s own administrative instructions make clear that he remained bound by strict confidentiality obligations. The transmission of Security Council briefings, internal diplomatic readouts, and privileged conversations, or other non-public UN information to an external private individual would constitute a direct breach of the applicable UN regulatory framework.
The Secretariat’s attempt to emphasize Mr. Rød-Larsen’s contractual modality therefore does not constitute an explanation. It underscores the institutional failure: individuals operating under UN authority, whether staff or gratis personnel, appear to have been able to transmit sensitive information externally over an extended period without effective oversight, accountability, or transparent consequences.
5- UNESCO’s subsequent recruitment of Fabrice Aidan is indefensible
It is now established that the UN Secretariat introduced an explicit, systematized mechanism for recording misconduct-related separations through ST/AI/2017/1 (26 October 2017), which provides for a “note to file” in the Official Status File when a staff member resigns before completion of disciplinary proceedings.
ClearCheck was subsequently introduced as a system-wide vetting mechanism in 2018.
But even before ClearCheck existed, every UN entity had a duty to conduct meaningful reference checks and consult prior UN service records.
And yet, Fabrice Aidan reportedly was reemployed by UNESCO under Audray Azoulay’s leadership between 2019 and 2023.
This raises the unavoidable question: how was a person who resigned from the UN Secretariat in 2013 while under a full-fledged disciplinary process later allowed to return to the UN system?
Who facilitated his recruitment and how?
6- Information Governance and Internal Security Controls
While it is fully accepted that the United Nations does not and should not engage in indiscriminate monitoring of staff email communications, this does not absolve the Organization of its duty to maintain effective governance, information security controls, and safeguards over the handling of privileged and confidential material.
The transmission of Security Council briefings, internal diplomatic readouts, and sensitive documentation is not an administrative triviality: it is precisely the type of information that should be protected through clear access controls, classification protocols, audit mechanisms, and enforceable confidentiality procedures.
If such material can be repeatedly extracted from official UN channels and transmitted externally over an extended period without detection, mitigation, or consequence, the issue is no longer limited to individual misconduct, it reflects a systemic failure of internal oversight and information governance
Finally, it is difficult to ignore the Spokesperson’s attempt to close the exchange by suggesting that “everybody’s focus should be… on the victims of Mr. Epstein.”
No one disputes the centrality of the victims in this criminal case. However, coming from the United Nations, this statement is disingenuous. The UN has repeatedly failed to adopt a genuinely victim-centred approach in its own internal misconduct cases, particularly those involving harassment and sexual abuse.
The Organization continues to receive and systematically mishandle countless reports from staff members, disproportionately women, many of whom refrain from reporting altogether due to well-founded fear of retaliation, and many of whom did report only to see their cases buried without meaningful consequence for perpetrators.
The UN should begin by demonstrating accountability towards its own internal victims before invoking “victim-centred” rhetoric as a means of deflecting legitimate questions of institutional responsibility.
It is also important to underscore that thousands of UN staff members are dismayed by the Fabrice Aidan case precisely because it stands in stark contrast to the stringent disciplinary measures routinely applied to ordinary staff members for minor deviations, perceived reputational issues, or administrative technicalities. Staff members are sanctioned, separated, or threatened for far less. Yet in this case, the documented misuse of official UN channels to transmit sensitive information externally appears to have unfolded over years with no transparent accountability.
This disparity raises serious questions not only about oversight and information governance, but also about vetting, institutional protection, privileged access, and the unequal application of rules within the Organization. It reinforces a perception widely shared among staff: that UN accountability is not applied uniformly, and that those embedded in elite networks or connected to influential figures are treated under a different standard than the workforce expected to comply without exception.
The United Nations can do better and must do better.
Today, I sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General with one straightforward question: was Fabrice Aidan ever investigated while serving as a staff member of the UN Secretariat, in light of the DOJ-released Epstein correspondence and recent French reporting?
If the UN did investigate and took disciplinary action, then how was Aidan later able to re-enter the UN system and work at UNESCO between 2019 and 2023?
Was his record ever entered into ClearCheck: the UN’s system-wide screening mechanism meant to prevent the rehiring of individuals linked to misconduct?
And if the UN did not investigate, then what exactly did the Secretariat do when it was reportedly informed in 2013 of an FBI report concerning his alleged conduct?
If the UN did not investigate, it must explain why
If the UN did investigate, it must disclose the outcome.
The United Nations cannot claim to uphold rules it applies selectively. Accountability cannot be something imposed on the powerless while those embedded in elite networks are shielded from scrutiny.
Continued silence will only confirm what many staff have learned through experience: governance, ethics, and accountability operate in one direction only: downward.
For the past two years, United Nations staff around the world have been threatened, warned, and at times explicitly intimidated by senior management for daring to speak publicly about the genocide committed by Israel in Palestine. Multiple internal broadcasts were circulated across the UN system, emphasizing “neutrality” and the Organization’s intolerance for public commentary that could “damage” its reputation. In some duty stations, staff were effectively told that speaking out, even as private individuals, to denounce the genocide, could trigger disciplinary action leading to dismissal.
What makes this file explosive is not merely what it reveals about Fabrice Aidan. It is what it reveals about the United Nations itself: an organization that has spent the past two years policing staff speech on Gaza with threats of disciplinary action, while a UN official spent nearly eight years using his official UN email account to correspond with Jeffrey Epstein, circulating Security Council briefings, facilitating elite diplomatic access, and arranging protocol-level coordination for Epstein’s presence in high-level Middle East forums. This conduct unfolded quietly, without sanction, without apparent investigation, and without any comparable invocation of “neutrality” or “duty of discretion.” Discretion, it seems, is enforced only against those who speak about Palestine not against those who leak the Organization’s most sensitive material to sexual predators and child rapists.
The UN staff member is Fabrice Aidan.
His name appears unredacted in the Epstein files. Aidan was not a contractor, a consultant or an outsider. The correspondence identifies him as:
“Special Assistant to the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General” a staff member at a P-4 or P-5 level.
Aidan was a French civil servant at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and his diplomatic trajectory is particularly relevant. Before joining the UN system, he served at the French Embassy in Israel between 1998 and 2000. After his UN tenure for 8 years working as the Special Assistant of Terje Rød-Larsen, he transitioned into elite financial and influence networks, later becoming an advisor to the Edmond de Rothschild Group. This post-UN transition matters because it reflects continuity: the same individual who acted as a political access facilitator inside the UN system later resurfaced inside Europe’s high finance ecosystem.
His public footprint is also telling. Aidan’s own X/Twitter account reflects the type of political ecosystem in which he appears comfortable. In October 2023, he reposted a tweet by Hugues Serraf stating, in French, that
“life is always simpler when one is far-right, far-left, and/or a religious fanatic, because such people believe they hold absolute truth, have no moral hesitation, and can shout “death to so-and-so” with total serenity”
This repost is not a harmless political observation. It is Aidan publicly amplifying a message that treats extremist ideology as a lifestyle choice and makes “death to so-and-so” sound like an acceptable form of political expression. For a former French diplomat and UN insider, this is not merely tone-deaf. It is consistent with the profile emerging from the Epstein correspondence: a man for whom institutional norms were always negotiable, and for whom discretion was never about protecting the public interest, only about protecting the network.
The paper trail begins in May 2010. On 5 May 2010, Jeffrey Epstein appears to have identified Terje Rød-Larsen as a strategic entry point into UN Middle East diplomacy. Epstein wrote to none other than Peter Mandelson asking:
“do you know Therje Roed-Larsen. –Oslo accord United nations envoy?” EFTA00891863
Minutes later, after Mandelson replied “No, why?”, Epstein followed up, effectively justifying why Rød-Larsen mattered and why an introduction was worth pursuing. He described him as:
“one of the most powerful figures in the middle east. both sides- under sec general u.n.. in london for a few days” EFTA01812397
The language describes Rød-Larsen as a geopolitical lever.
Within months, Fabrice Aidan emerges in the correspondence as the operational channel through which Epstein is integrated into the UN-linked diplomatic orbit surrounding Rød-Larsen.
By October 2010, Aidan is already communicating with Epstein as if Epstein’s attendance at a closed diplomatic retreat is a normal administrative matter. The retreat in question was the 2010 Sir Bani Yas Forum, the inaugural edition of a high-level invite-only gathering hosted by H.H. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The forum was designed as a discreet setting for ministers and senior global figures to discuss Middle East peace and security away from public scrutiny.
Epstein wanted in.
The correspondence shows Aidan handling the request personally. In one exchange, Aidan writes to Epstein:
“I need to speak with the FM UAE to add you on the list first and then they will contact you. What should be your title/affiliation for the invitation?” EFTA007532276
Epstein responds with a deliberately evasive and mocking suggestion, treating the invitation process as a joke and assuming, correctly, that UN officials would accommodate him anyway:
“I assume we can’t just write„- just an ordinary good guy, with a colorful past and a bright future?”
Instead of doing the one thing a UN official is paid to do, Aidan plays the role of facilitator and damage-control officer, treating Epstein’s fake “bio” as workable and framing potential objections as a problem to be contained:
“For me it would suffice, but you have some rigid people there too, that we need to contain.”
That phrase “we need to contain” is the type of language used by insiders protecting an operation, not by UN staff safeguarding institutional integrity.
The internal chain confirms that Epstein’s entry into Sir Bani Yas was not merely facilitated by Aidan but was directly tied to Terje Rød-Larsen’s intervention at the highest level. A message circulated among organizers states:
“Terje, after discussions with HH, has invited Mr. Jeffrey Epstein…” EFTA02421131
The same message apologizes for Epstein being added late:
“With apologies for this last minute addition, Terje would like that Mr. Epstein be added to the list of participants.”
Aidan himself confirms that the invitation was cleared with UAE leadership:
“As terje indicated, he cleared with HH that Jeffrey Epstein should be invited to the SBF.” EFTA2421068
The machinery then moves rapidly. UAE protocol officials request passport copies and photographs, explicitly referencing that the request was relayed through Aidan, who by then was the recognized channel for Epstein’s participation.
At this stage, the UN’s role is not subtle. The correspondence reflects a UN political office inserting Epstein into a closed forum where foreign ministers and high-level decision-makers convened under Chatham House rules. Epstein is processed through security clearance and logistics, while his team provides private jet details, passport pages, and headshot photographs as if this were a routine addition to an official diplomatic guest list.
By January 2011, the relationship evolves from invitation facilitation into protocol-level coordination involving Gulf leadership.
On 25 January 2011, Fabrice Aidan sends Epstein an email marked “Urgent” from his official UN address:
“Just tried to call you. Sh abdallah accepts the dinner with b gates. They need urgently a phone number for protocol coordination.” EFTA00648501
The message is notable not only for its content, but for its assumption: Epstein is treated as a relevant operational link in an interaction involving Sheikh Abdullah and Bill Gates. This is a UN staff member coordinating protocol requirements through Epstein.
The most serious part of the file, however, is not about access or dinners. It is about leaks.
In August 2011, a document titled:
“SG’s telephone conversation with FM of Turkey”EFTA02693326
appears in the correspondence chain reaching Epstein. The document concerns the former Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon’s private telephone conversation with Turkey’s Foreign Minister: a type of confidential readout that is normally restricted to a narrow circle within UN Headquarters.
The chain shows that the material was routed through the UN office channel associated with Fabrice Aidan.
The same pattern appears with Security Council-related documents. In October 2011, a document titled:
The tone clearly suggests this was not exceptional, and it was a routine transmission of UN reports to Epstein.
Then comes a detail that might seem absurd if it were not embedded in the same correspondence trail as Security Council briefings.
In August 2012, Epstein’s office requests shoe sizes for a luxury gift: personalized Stubbs and Wootton shoes with initials. Fabrice Aidan replies:
“Finally got the answer Edward size 7 EJRL Terje size 9 TRL” EFTA00553532
A UN official who had access to confidential Middle East diplomatic reporting and Security Council material was also providing personal details to facilitate luxury gifting from Epstein. It is the kind of exchange that signals closeness, loyalty, and a relationship cemented not only by political access but by personal indulgence.
By October 2013, the correspondence indicates that Aidan was actively shifting communications away from the UN as he was already working for Edmond de Rothschild Group.
He writes to Epstein:
“I saw that you sent me an email to my UN address. I check it not that often anymore. Best is to write to my personal one” EFTA01951288
This is a critical moment in the file. It suggests that what is publicly visible may only represent the portion of communications captured through UN systems. Anything routed through private addresses remains outside the record.
The financial dimension becomes more explicit in 2014, a time when Aidan was working with the Rothschild group. The correspondence includes discussions of transfers and wiring instructions linked to Terje Rød-Larsen and Epstein. One message states:
“Now being told 2 more days before we receive Terje 130,000”
Aidan then confirms that he personally intervened with the bank to resolve a transfer issue:
“I called the bank that suspended the transfer because of insufficient info related to the beneficiary bank id. All is set now. Apparently for amount above 50k, they are extra careful” EFTA00983426
By 2016, Epstein remains in direct contact with both Terje Rød-Larsen and Fabrice Aidan. In April 2016, he forwards them a link titled:
“Un scandale de pedophilie etouffe par le Quai d’Orsay” EFTA02466465
This is not a random link. Epstein is forwarding an article about a pedophilia scandal allegedly buried by the Quai d’Orsay to Terje Rød-Larsen and to Fabrice Aidan, a former French diplomat whose career was built inside that same institutional ecosystem. The obvious question is why Epstein assumed they would be receptive to this material, and what kind of familiarity or shared context made him comfortable circulating pedophilia-related content to them as if it were ordinary reading.
By 2017, Aidan appears fully embedded in elite private networks. Ariane de Rothschild writes to Epstein referencing travel and social encounters, and makes the following remark:
“I saw an amazing picture of a very happy Fabrice Aidan with MBS… Wow !” EFTA00954267
At that point, Fabrice Aidan is no longer merely a “former UN staff member” whose name happens to appear in an embarrassing email dump. He is the portrait of a system that protects the well-connected while policing the powerless. Because this is what the correspondence shows in plain sight: a UN staff member using his official UN email account to serve Jeffrey Epstein, sending Security Council briefings, arranging elite invitations, coordinating protocol with Gulf leadership, and facilitating access that no ordinary person could ever obtain.
And this unfolded quietly, year after year, without sanction, without apparent investigation, and without any serious enforcement of the UN’s own Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, standards that are not subject to selective application.
“Because disclosure of confidential information may seriously jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of an organization, international civil servants are responsible for exercising discretion in all matters of official business. They must not divulge confidential information without authorization. International civil servants should not use information to personal advantage that has not been made public and is known to them by virtue of their official position. These obligations do not cease upon separation from service. Organizations must maintain guidelines for the use and protection of confidential information, and it is equally necessary for such guidelines to keep pace with developments in communications and other new technology.”
This is precisely what makes the Fabrice Aidan correspondence so damning. The conduct documented in the DOJ files is not a grey zone. It is a direct contradiction of the UN’s own written standards: a UN staff member using his UN title, UN office, and official UN email account for nearly three years to transmit sensitive material, circulate Security Council briefings, and treat confidential diplomatic readouts as routine attachments while facilitating privileged access for Jeffrey Epstein.
Today, UN staff members are dismissed, disciplined, or threatened for the smallest perceived breach of outside activity rules, for speaking out, or for expressing the most basic solidarity with Palestinian children being dismembered under Israeli bombardment. Yet one of its own officials was allowed to operate as a political concierge for Jeffrey Epstein not in secrecy, but through an email trail so blatant that it reads like a parody.
This raises the question the UN will not answer: what kind of oversight, governance, ethics framework, or internal accountability does the Organization claim to have, if a staff member could conduct this level of misconduct in plain view for so many years? Or is “ethics” simply a disciplinary tool reserved for staff who are disposable while immunity, protection, and silence are extended to the elite, exactly as they were to Epstein?
It also raises a parallel question for the French government. Aidan was not a random opportunist. He was a French civil servant, posted to sensitive diplomatic assignments, including the French Embassy in Israel, later embedded in the UN, and then absorbed into elite financial networks. If the French state cannot account for how one of its own diplomats became operationally entangled with Epstein’s network, then the problem is not merely UN governance. It is national governance.
How many other Fabrice Aidans operated inside the UN system or still operate inside it, serving two masters, cultivating private allegiances, and treating public office as a currency of access? And how many more files remain buried simply because the names involved are too connected, too protected, too untouchable?
In IOM, a Chief of Mission has been sexually harassing a dozen female staff members, with the former Director General covering for him.
More than a dozen United Nations IOM female staff members filed independent complaints of sexual harassment against a current Chief of Mission.
The former Director General was formally apprised of these complaints, yet he took no action.
The PSEA focal point, entrusted with protecting victims and ensuring reporting of sexual misconduct, actively discouraged the complainants by stating
“If I had suffered sexual harassment by a senior staff member, I would not report it.”
The IOM Ombudsman did not fare any better, instead turning a blind eye.
The IOM sexual harasser continued in his functions as if nothing had happened.
Several staff members subsequently began experiencing retaliation in different forms.
When the Internal Office of Investigations finally decided to launch an investigation, many of the complainants chose to withdraw their complaints out of fear of being identified through their testimonies, even where anonymity was supposedly guaranteed.
The investigation was unfortunately protracted, to the detriment of many staff members, some of whom chose to leave the Organization altogether. At the same time, the IOM sexual harasser remains very much in place and without concern.
More worryingly, a 2022 External Evaluation of IOM’s Approach to Protection Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment noted in its final report a deeply troubling approach to dealing with sexual harassment at IOM with the report presenting an encouraging view that some forms of sexual harassment could be addressed through management action, or for informal mediation by the Office of Ombudsperson should the affected individual choose not to pursue a formal investigation.
This approach does not dissuade perpetrators from continuing predatory behavior. On the contrary, it has proven largely ineffective and extremely damaging. The dozens of women who complained in this case reached out to the former Director General, to the PSEA focal point, and to the Ombudsman. None of these actors deemed it necessary to stop the aberrant behavior.
When she assumed her functions as the new Director General of the International Organization for Migration on 1 October 2023, Amy Pope, the first woman to lead IOM in its history, stated in her speech:
“I pledge that IOM will put at its highest priority protecting the women and girls we serve.”
It is time to practice what you preach. The continued presence of a Chief of Mission accused by multiple female staff members of sexual harassment, after years of inaction, retaliation, and institutional failure, cannot be reconciled with it.
Amy Pope, the moment for statements has passed.
Accountability now requires immediate and decisive action.
In the wake of the open letter recently published from a feminist collective of UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency staff documenting two years of unresolved complaints involving intimidation, aggression, and a hostile work environment, and pointing to institutional failures across oversight, ethics, and human resources functions, I was contacted by aUNHCR junior staff member who wished to support the concerns raised.
The UNHCR staff member came forward to support the collective’s concerns and shared their official exit interview. I am publishing a summarized and redacted version of that testimony to protect anonymity.
While personal in nature, the account closely and independently corroborates the allegations made by the UNHCR collective of female staff, describing a work environment marked by harassment, intimidation, aggression, abuse of authority, humiliation, the absence of effective protection mechanisms, and a hostile work environment that ultimately led to resignation.
Taken together, these testimonies paint a grim picture of a toxic work culture within parts of UNHCR, where harassment and abuse of authority permeate the environment systematically.
The exit interview includes the following account:
“My manager shouted directly in my face and threw a folder containing World Refugee Day documents at me.”
That this incident involved World Refugee Day materials is difficult to ignore. It underscores the widening gap between the values UNHCR publicly promotes and the treatment experienced by staff behind closed doors and raises an uncomfortable question about what happens when dignity is not practiced internally.
At this point, it is fair to ask whether UNHCR’s exit interviews serve any purpose beyond documenting harm after staff have already left.
Judicial Scrutiny, Counsel Conduct, and the Cost of Zero Tolerance
“Thou Shalt Always Read The Footnotes.”
A UN senior official once advised me to always pay close attention to footnotes in judgments. Footnotes are often where the real findings reside. They are discreet, carefully worded, and easy to overlook unless one understands what is at stake. They are where tribunals sometimes record patterns they are not yet prepared to confront head-on.
And in one recent sexual-harassment case, ATR v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. UNDT/2024/100 involving a senior official, Mr. Polinikis Sophocleous, a single footnote proved sufficiently unsettling to trigger an extraordinary mobilisation of the Organization’s vast legal machinery, ironically, not against the sexual harassment itself, but against the judges who recorded it.
What followed was extraordinary: a prolonged procedural campaign: motions, compelled disclosure, two detailed UNDT orders, one of them running to fifteen pages, and ultimately appellate scrutiny before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal: all orbiting a single footnote.
The Secretary-General’s legal counsel’s objective was plain: to prevent the UNDT from recording, even in a footnote, a pattern the Tribunal itself considered troubling, namely, that senior offenders in workplace sexual-harassment cases appear to receive more lenient disciplinary measures than lower-level staff.
Rather than directing its legal effort toward compensating the victim or addressing the remedial gap the Tribunal expressly acknowledged, the Organization concentrated its full legal force on eliminating any trace of judicial criticism, even when confined to a footnote.
This episode offers a clear, documentary view into how far the Secretary-General’s administration is prepared to go to control the narrative of accountability, including the strategic use of data submissions, jurisdictional maneuvers, and appellate escalation, when the subject is discipline for sexual harassment, and the Organization’s professed “zero-tolerance” posture is placed under judicial light.
Most readers do not linger on a footnote.
That is precisely why this one matters. It is a small space in a judgment that triggered an outsized institutional response and in doing so, it exposed the temper of the system of administration of justice at the United Nations today: the ferocity of its defensive litigation, and the priorities it reveals. What follows is a forensic reconstruction of how a footnote became a battleground and what that battleground reveals about power, accountability, and the UN’s own system of administration of justice.
The footnote itself is worth reproducing. It recorded what the Tribunal observed when reading the Administration’s own disciplinary record in the related Sophocleous case:
“The most astounding part of that judgment was the Administration’s concession that, although sexual harassment most frequently results in termination of a United Nations staff member, if the harassment occurred in the workplace and ‘the offender is a manager with considerable power over the affected individuals, the most frequently imposed disciplinary measure is that of demotion with deferment of at least one year of eligibility for consideration for promotion.
Reduced punishment for higher-level workplace harassers is troubling in that it seems contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.
When the Organization refuses to disclose the discipline it imposed, the harasser returns to work, and the Organization later admits that managers frequently receive lighter punishment than others for sexual harassment, even the most gullible person must wonder about the Organization’s professed commitment to ‘zero tolerance’.”
The footnote appeared as an ancillary observation, without affecting the outcome, in a judgment where sexual harassment had been established, the victim’s credibility affirmed, and the imbalance of power expressly recognised. It nonetheless placed on the judicial record a concern that the Organization has long resisted confronting.
Within weeks, the Secretary-General’s administration mobilised its full legal apparatus to have it erased. A motion was filed invoking the Tribunal’s limited power of correction, with the Administration alleging that the Tribunal had relied on inaccurate information and had impermissibly suggested differential treatment based on grade. The Secretary-General requested the immediate deletion of the footnote.
What is notable is what the motion did not address. It did not challenge the finding of sexual harassment. It did not contest the Administration’s delay of more than three years in imposing the disciplinary measure on the perpetrator. It did not engage with the absence of compensation or the denial of information to the victim. Its sole focus was the footnote, to the point that the substance of the appeal under review all but receded from view.
The UN Dispute Tribunal did not take the bait. Rather than acceding to a request to excise judicial language on assertion alone, it treated the Administration’s allegations for what they were: a factual challenge requiring proof. In Order No. 167 (NBI/2024), the Tribunal directed the Administration to substantiate its claims with evidence.
The Tribunal noted that the data invoked by the Secretary-General in its motion were drawn from a narrower timeframe than the disciplinary compendium on which the footnote was based, excluded entire staff categories, and conflated grade with supervisory authority. It therefore required the Administration to produce a comprehensive, searchable dataset covering all established cases of sexual and workplace harassment from at least 2009 to the present, including the offender’s grade, supervisory status, the nature of the misconduct, and the precise disciplinary measure imposed.
The exercise of disclosure proved revealing in ways the Administration had not intended. When the data was finally produced, it did not substantiate the claim advanced by the Secretary-General’s counsel. On the contrary, it exposed fundamental inconsistencies in how the Administration had framed its argument.
The dataset was neither methodologically coherent nor responsive to the Tribunal’s order. It mixed categories, relied on selective timeframes, and failed to distinguish meaningfully between grade, supervisory authority, and the nature of the misconduct.
Faced with this submission, the Tribunal did what courts are expected to do. In Order No. 21 (NBI/2025), spanning fifteen pages, it undertook its own analysis of the Administration’s material. Rather than accept the conclusions offered by the Secretary-General’s counsel, the Tribunal recalculated the figures, tested the assumptions on which they rested, and assessed the data against the very criteria the Administration itself had proposed.
The result was clear.
When properly analysed, the data supported, rather than undermined the Tribunal’s observation recorded in the footnote.
The Tribunal concluded that lower-level staff found responsible for sexual harassment were, in fact, more frequently subjected to termination than higher-level staff, who more often received lesser disciplinary measures. The pattern held even when controlling for variables that the Administration had invoked to argue the contrary.
It is worth pausing here to recall the scale of what was set in motion: the mobilisation of the Secretary-General’s legal apparatus, the compulsory engagement of the Tribunal’s judicial resources, and ultimately appellate proceedings: all directed at a footnote, and pursued after the Administration had been placed on notice that its own data did not support the position advanced.
At that point, the factual dispute should have been at an end. The Tribunal expressly stated that its original observation had been “very accurate” and declined to withdraw it. It agreed only to minimal linguistic adjustments, removing two words to avoid characterising the Administration’s disciplinary record as a formal “concession.” The substance of the footnote remained intact.
Rather than appealing the order directly, the Administration carried the footnote dispute into the appellate phase by appending the amended judgment to its appeal submissions to UNAT, ensuring that a single footnote would continue to occupy judicial scrutiny at the highest level.
The Appeals Tribunal dismantled the Administration’s position at its foundation (Judgment No. 2025-UNAT-1601). It refused to entertain the notion that the dispute concerned wording or presentation. Instead, it held that the Secretary-General’s approach amounted to an impermissible attempt to recast judicial reasoning through a correction procedure that does not exist for that purpose and all the more so after the Tribunal-ordered disclosure had validated the contested observation.
Having disposed of the premise, the Appeals Tribunal then addressed the consequence. In Judgment No. 2025-UNAT-1601, it held that the Dispute Tribunal had acted ultra vires in entertaining the motion for correction once an appeal against the judgment had been filed. The correction mechanism could not be used to reopen reasoning, reassess evidence, or recalibrate judicial language. On that basis, the Appeals Tribunal declared the purported amendment without legal effect and reinstated UNDT/2024/100 in its original form, including the footnote the Administration had sought to eliminate.
The result was decisive.
After months of litigation, compelled disclosure, judicial analysis, and appellate scrutiny, the position advanced by the Secretary-General’s counsel did not survive review. The footnote remained on the record, having exposed the lengths to which the Secretary-General’s administration was prepared to go to suppress judicial scrutiny in a case of substantiated sexual harassment.
But that resolution does not exhaust the questions this case raises.
How did the Secretary-General’s legal counsel reach a point where months of litigation, judicial time, and institutional resources were devoted to suppressing a footnote in a sexual-harassment case? At what point did this cease to be about legal argument and become something else? And do those responsible reflect on how such a course of action aligns with the standards of integrity, candour, and restraint they are bound to uphold?
The conduct of the Secretary-General’s counsel must be assessed against the standards governing legal representation before the UN tribunals. Article 4 of the Code of Conduct for Legal Representatives and Litigants in Person requires counsel to “maintain the highest standards of integrity” and to act “honestly, candidly, fairly, courteously, in good faith,” while also acting “diligently and efficiently” and avoiding unnecessary delay.
Counsel acting with candour and integrity are expected to reassess their position when the evidentiary record no longer sustains it, and to conduct proceedings efficiently rather than exhaustively. The insistence on carrying this issue forward, despite the Tribunal’s findings, raises a legitimate question as to whether those standards were met in practice.
It also raises a broader and unavoidable issue of accountability. Who bears the cost of this litigation strategy? Months of legal work, multiple judicial orders, detailed evidentiary analysis, and appellate proceedings were devoted to a footnote, all funded by the Organization.
Do Member States know that resources contributed by taxpayers were expended in this way? And who, within the system, is responsible for monitoring how the Secretary-General’s legal counsel deploys those resources when the objective is not to vindicate rights or resolve disputes, but to weaken judicial scrutiny of the administration itself.
To their credit, the UN Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal did not yield. UNDT insisted on evidence, and UNAT ultimately reaffirmed that judicial reasoning is not subject to administrative pressure or litigation tactics designed to silence criticism. The attempt to intimidate the judiciary into retreat, even over a footnote, failed.
One might have expected such energy, and such resources, to be reserved for combating sexual harassment.
This open letter was entrusted to me for publication by a group of women staff members working within the United Nations system.
It is formally addressed to Mr. Barham Salih, the newly appointed High Commissioner for UNHCR. The same concerns and supporting material were raised repeatedly over the past two years with his predecessor, Mr. Filippo Grandi, and were copied to the Secretary-General and senior UN leadership, without resulting action.
Written after the exhaustion of all internal mechanisms, the letter raises serious concerns about impunity, institutional silence, and failures of accountability within UNHCR, including the roles of oversight, ethics, and human resources functions.
I am sharing it in the interest of transparency, accountability, and informed public discussion.
*Disclaimer: This letter is published at the request of the authors. I am not a party to the matters raised.
Leadership, power, and the deliberate exclusion at the heart of the Palestine refugee system
With less than two months remaining in UNRWA CG’s mandate, and as he appears to be leveraging the closing phase of his term to take far-reaching executive decisions that risk dismantling UNRWA, attention is already shifting to the question of succession.
Who will be the next Commissioner-General? A German? An Italian? A Swiss? A British national? An American? A Swedish or Norwegian candidate?
And yet, conspicuously absent from the discussion is any mention of an Arab national or even a candidate from a host country. Why is that?
Why is it that an agency with such a unique mandate, employing approximately 31,000 Palestine refugees to serve nearly five million Palestine refugees across Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan must invariably be headed by a Western European or American Commissioner-General?
Why is it considered inconceivable for an Arab national, more specifically a candidate from one of the host countries, to preside over an agency that operates almost entirely on their territory, serves their populations, and relies so heavily on their political and social environment?
Take, by contrast, one of the five regional commissions operating within the United Nations system: the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). ESCWA serves 21 Arab States across Western Asia and North Africa, and its Executive Secretary has consistently been appointed from among nationals of those very member States.
So why is UNRWA, an agency operating almost exclusively in the Arab region and serving a Palestinian refugee population, invariably presided over by a Western-led Commissioner-General?
I argue that this is neither incidental nor accidental. It is deliberate.
The Commissioner-General of UNRWA is appointed by the Secretary-General following consultations with UNRWA’s Advisory Commission, which includes major donors and host countries. No formal vote or approval by the General Assembly is required. The General Assembly is merely informed of the appointment and has no authority to confirm or reject the candidate.
While UNRWA operates under the authority of the General Assembly, executive authority, including appointment power rests with the Secretary-General. This results in a highly centralized process, devoid of any competitive or transparent selection procedure, with no public shortlisting or clearly articulated criteria.
In practice, political considerations such as donor confidence, geopolitical alignments, and host-state sensitivities play a decisive role in the appointment of UNRWA’s Commissioner-General.
UNRWA’s Commissioner-General is, in effect, a political appointment of the Secretary-General, insulated from direct General Assembly approval.
By contrast, in regional commissions such as ESCWA, the Executive Secretary is appointed through a politically negotiated, intergovernmental process, requiring General Assembly approval and explicit regional buy-in.
This distinction goes directly to questions of accountability, independence, and political leverage and is particularly consequential in the current crisis context.
Since its establishment, ESCWA has been led almost exclusively by Arab nationals, appointed from within the region it serves. By contrast, UNRWA has never been led by a Palestinian, a host-country national, or even an Arab national from a major regional donor State. Its Commissioners-General have been overwhelmingly Western, predominantly European and North American.
This raises, once again, the central question: why has UNRWA never been led by an Arab?
There is no legal rule preventing the appointment of a Palestinian, a Jordanian, a Lebanese, a Syrian, or an Arab national from a major UNRWA donor State. And yet, over more than seven decades, no such appointment has ever occurred.
Instead, UNRWA’s leadership has followed a remarkably consistent pattern: Western nationality, diplomatic pedigree, acceptability to major donor States, and a perceived political “distance” from the refugee community.
The underlying reasons are rarely stated explicitly, yet they are well understood within the system.
First, UNRWA is politically inconvenient. It embodies an unresolved refugee question that powerful States would prefer to manage, contain, or quietly sunset. A Commissioner-General drawn from the refugee community or even from a host State would be more difficult to pressure, harder to discipline, and less easily aligned with donor red lines.
Second, funding equals leverage. Unlike other United Nations entities or regional commissions such as ESCWA, UNRWA is funded almost entirely through voluntary contributions. Western donors do not merely fund the Agency; they actively shape its operating space. Leadership, in turn, is selected accordingly.
Third, control is mistaken for neutrality. Western leadership is presented as “impartial,” while regional leadership is implicitly framed as “political.” This assumption is neither neutral nor defensible: it simply reflects whose politics are normalized.
Fourth, there is an unspoken trust deficit. Palestinians are trusted to teach, heal, vaccinate, rebuild and increasingly, to absorb institutional collapse. But they are not trusted to lead.
So who, then, controls UNRWA? And does this amount to a form of colonization of the Palestine cause?
If colonization is understood as the systematic removal of decision-making power from those most directly affected, the answer becomes difficult to avoid
UNRWA serves Palestinians, is staffed overwhelmingly by Palestinians, and operates almost entirely in Palestinian camps and communities; yet it has been led, without exception, by outsiders, overwhelmingly Western.
Those who decide are not those who live with the consequences. Indeed, leadership matters: it shapes how crises are framed, how staff are treated, how cuts are imposed, and how accountability is exercised or avoided. This is precisely what we are witnessing today through mass suspensions, terminations, and salary cuts implemented under the current Commissioner-General of UNRWA.
While the Commissioner-General of UNRWA should, in principle, be accountable to the Palestinian communities the Agency serves, the current governance structure ensures the opposite. By reporting directly to the Secretary-General rather than to the General Assembly, accountability flows upward: to donors and political power centers rather than downward to the Palestinian communities most affected by UNRWA’s decisions.
Why is Arab leadership considered acceptable for every United Nations body operating in the region except the one mandated to serve Palestinians?
Three factors are at play: First, a fear of political alignment with the refugee cause. Second, a fear of challenging donor orthodoxy. Third and most consequential, a deliberate preference to keep UNRWA administratively weak and politically contained.
Why?
Because a strong, regionally rooted UNRWA leadership would be harder to dismantle.
With less than three months remaining in the current Commissioner-General’s mandate, the most consequential question confronting the Secretary-General and host countries alike is not who comes next, but why Arab leadership continues to be excluded.
The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini, is presiding over the deliberate dismantling of the Agency by terminating Palestinian staff en masse under false administrative pretexts in the final weeks of his mandate.
In Gaza today, acting on his direct instructions, letters of termination are being issued withimmediate effectto more than 620 Palestinian teachers, staff who were suspended less than a year ago and deliberately placed into financial asphyxiation through so-called “exceptional leave.” They were removed from work, stripped of income, isolated from their duties, and left in enforced precarity. The same justification recycled without shame is nothing but the ongoing financial crisis.
The termination letters that we have seen and verified assert that
“after careful review, the Commissioner-General has decided, pursuant to Staff Regulation 9.1, to terminate in the interest of the Agency the contracts of staff,”
mechanically appending expressions of “regret” before declaring that employment is terminated “with immediate effect.”
These expressions are false. Each of them. The assertions of “careful review,” “regret,” and “the interest of the Agency” are not merely misleading; they are knowingly untrue and will be exposed before the UN Tribunal. The termination notices rely on formulaic language to mask decisions taken in bad faith, in advance, and for an improper purpose.
The invocation of “the interest of the Agency” is being used to justify the unlawful elimination of Palestinian staff. The claim of “careful review” conceals predetermined outcomes since February 2025. The expression of “regret” serves no legal function other than to cosmetically accompany an otherwise brutal administrative act. These terms are, in fact, misrepresentations deployed to manufacture legality where none exists. Their purpose is to insulate them from accountability, judicial scrutiny, and responsibility.
For twelve consecutive years, UNRWA has operated with an annual deficit ranging between USD 100 to 120 million. At no point during those twelve years was the mass termination of Palestinian staff advanced as a corrective measure. Not because it was overlooked, but because it was never a legitimate option.
UNRWA’s deficit is not an anomaly; it is a known, structural, and politically sustained condition. Donor states have long accepted, indeed, engineered a model in which the Agency functions under permanent financial shortfall. Savings measures, austerity cycles, hiring freezes, and programmatic compression have never eliminated that deficit, nor were they intended to. Yet the Agency has continued to operate, deliver services, and fulfill its mandate every single year under those conditions.
Nothing changed in January 2026 except the decision to terminate hundreds of Palestinian staff in Gaza, Jordan, and soon in Lebanon.
The mandate of UNRWA is not discretionary expenditure. It is a legal obligation to employ Palestinian refugees to serve Palestinian refugees across education, health, relief, protection, infrastructure, and microfinance. For those unaware: staffing with Palestinian refugees is not ancillary to the mandate; it is the mandate.
The termination of teachers is therefore not a budgetary adjustment. It is a deliberate act of mandate dismantlement, executed under the false pretense of financial necessity. What is being reduced is not cost, but Palestinian presence.
The Commissioner-General has no legal or moral authority to hollow out the mandate of UNRWA under the guise of financial management. Authority to administer the Agency does not include authority to dismantle it, and the CG’s budgetary discretion does not extend to extinguishing the very purpose for which the Agency exists.
The obscenity of these decisions is entrenched in the hierarchy that sustains them. The Acting Director in Gaza, a white Western European male installed through a procedurally unlawful appointment in direct violation of governing rules, as confirmed by an investigation under the Secretary-General’s authority, continues to occupy his position without consequence, earning over USD 17,000 per month,while terminating Palestinian teachers whose monthly salaries barely reach USD 1,000.
The administration now invokes urgency, inevitability, and the alleged absence of alternatives. None withstands scrutiny. The financial conditions cited are longstanding and well-known, and the timing exposes the design. Terminations are being carried out while collective appeals challenging the unlawful suspensions remain pending before the Tribunal, and while the Commissioner-General is approaching the end of his mandate.
More than 420 of these teachers have already filed a collective appeal with the UN Tribunal, challenging the legality of their suspensions and the denial of their salaries. The Commissioner-General’s sudden acceleration toward termination is nothing but a calculated attempt to render pending appeals moot by invoking Staff Regulation 9.1 and declaring, after careful review, that their contracts are ended in the interest of the Agency. Decisions are being rushed to pre-empt judicial review and to entrench faits accomplis before accountability can attach.
This is, in fact, the opening phase of a broader strategy that extends across UNRWA’s fields of operation, staff categories, and duty stations. The pattern is already replicating.
In Amman last Thursday, the Director of Security, another white Western European male whose appointment was also contested before the UN Tribunal, issued termination letters to 20 Palestinian security staff, barring them from UNRWA premises with immediate effect. Staff were informed that their functions would be outsourced to a private security company in order to “align with the rest of the UN system.”
That justification does not withstand even minimal legal scrutiny.
UNRWA is not a generic UN entity. Its mandate is singular and non-transferable: to employ Palestinian refugees in the service of Palestinian refugees. The outsourcing of Palestinian security functions to private contractors constitutes an ultra vires action. It exceeds administrative authority by displacing Palestinian staff from posts that are integral to UNRWA’s mandate. Procurement is being misused as a vehicle to achieve an outcome that management could not lawfully impose directly: the systematic exclusion of Palestinians from their own institution.
The invocation of “alignment” functions as a pretext to legitimize discriminatory impact, whereby Palestinian staff are removed en masse while senior international positions remain untouched. The financial disparity is undisguised. The Director of Security earns between USD 12,000 and 13,000 per month. The Palestinian staff he terminated earn approximately USD 800 per month. Senior management positions remain untouched; Palestinian livelihoods are declared expendable.
The moral arithmetic speaks for itself.
In Beirut, preparations are underway for the same maneuver. Approximately 100 Palestinian staffare expected to face termination under identical pretexts, using the same administrative language and the same manufactured justifications.
These measures are being executed at the very beginning of the year, and in the final weeks preceding the Commissioner-General’s departure at the end of March, the formal conclusion of his contract. This is the terminal phase of a policy implemented with the knowledge that accountability will soon be evaded through exit.
Following the closure of UNRWA’s Jerusalem headquarters, the dismantling has shifted inward. Field offices and headquarters are now being systematically hollowed out through attrition, termination, and outsourcing. The pattern is consistent, sequential, and intentional. This trajectory mirrors, with precision, the long-articulated objective of the Israeli government: the dismantling of UNRWA not through formal abolition, but through internal erosion: reducing staff, extinguishing functions, and stripping the Agency of its Palestinian core while preserving the façade of institutional continuity.
What is unfolding is a systematic, progressive, controlled disintegration.
When the Commissioner-General assumed office, UNRWA’s staffing table reflected approximately 31,000 Palestinian staff positions, including 13,000 in Gaza. These figures are still cited publicly, with confidence and repetition.
They are false.
Insider data confirms that UNRWA’s staffing has fallen to approximately 23,000 positions. Posts have been abolished incrementally and without transparency, with the most severe acceleration occurring over the past two years. In Gaza alone, staff numbers have collapsed from 13,000 to approximately 9,000, a consequence of deaths caused by Israeli attacks, forced retirements, and now, deliberate mass termination.
The plan is no longer deniable.
UNRWA is being dismantled from within by a senior Western European management cohort that continues to invoke humanitarian language while administering collective punishment against Palestinians, many of whom are simultaneously mourning family members killed by the very government whose political objectives these measures now advance.
No Western European Director or senior official within UNRWA has demonstrated the moral courage to halt these actions. None has objected. None has refused to execute them. These officials retain their positions by implementing decisions without scrutiny or resistance. Their allegiance is not to the mandate, nor to Palestinian refugees, but to institutional survival. In that sense, they operate as mercenaries: well compensated, insulated from consequences, and valued only for their willingness to comply.
As for the Commissioner-General, he has nothing to lose. His term ends in March 2026. His exit is secured. The same is likely true for those closest to him. Decisions are taken with the certainty that consequences will not follow. Quite the opposite: they are likely to be rewarded; absorbed into other senior roles, compensated by Western governments that continue to support Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people, and repositioned within the UN system to carry forward the same discriminatory practices under different institutional banners.
The decision to terminate 650 Palestinian staff in a single day, taken in the final weeks of the Commissioner-General’s tenure, is unprecedented in the history of both the United Nations and UNRWA. Such a measure: massive in scale, irreversible in effect, and executed at the very end of an executive mandate, raises serious questions about the continued propriety of allowing the Commissioner-General to exercise unfettered executive authority. When a senior official accelerates irreversible decisions at this scale immediately before departure, the issue is no longer administrative discretion but abuse of authority in anticipation of exit.
This conduct warrants scrutiny not only of the decision itself, but of the conditions under which it was taken. Reasonable questions arise as to whether assurances have been given, whether consequences have been neutralized in advance, and whether accountability has been effectively suspended. In any other institutional context, such circumstances would trigger immediate restraint, oversight, or the withdrawal of delegated authority.
Where, then, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations in all of this? What justification exists for permitting a departing Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini, to take decisions of historic magnitude in the final months of his tenure, with consequences that will long outlast his presence and fall entirely on Palestinian staff?
In mythology, when power abandoned humanity, it was Prometheus who defied it, who stole fire knowing the cost, not for recognition, not for permission, but because survival demanded action. He did not wait for consensus. He acted because inaction meant destruction.
Who, then, will act for Palestinian UNRWA staff?
Who will defy the machinery rather than continue to service it? Who will intervene when legality is being weaponized and procedure is being used to erase livelihoods?
Palestinian UNRWA staff are being erased while the world watches it happen in real time. Some are burying their families. Others are sleeping in shelters. And now they are being told, formally, politely, with immediate effect, that even their livelihoods are no longer allowed to survive.
This is how a mandate is killed: quietly, disingenuously, and from within, by the very official, Mr. Lazzarini, charged with safeguarding it, in direct violation of the oath attached to his office.
So where is Prometheus now? Who will defy power when survival demands it, rather than administer harm in its name?
The humanitarian system rests on a single, non-negotiable premise: do no harm. What is unfolding here is its deliberate inversion: do more harm. Terminate more Palestinian staff. Remove livelihoods. Deepen displacement. Align administrative decisions with the Israeli government’s long-stated objective of dismantling UNRWA and reducing the Palestinian presence in Gaza.
Yes: Do More Harm: Systematically and with Intent: One Termination Letter At A Time.
Not because it is lawful. Not because it is unavoidable. But because those authorizing it are insulated from its consequences, and because they calculate that Palestinian lives, Palestinian labour, and Palestinian rights can be extinguished administratively without cost.
This is how senior officials like Lazzarini participate in erasure: by choosing harm, authorizing it on paper, and enforcing it without ever having to fire a single shot.
Palestinians will remember you because you failed to protect them, failed to uphold the mandate entrusted to you, and willingly chose to inflict harm upon them, no different, in the end, from those who openly act as their enemy.
A critical legal analysis of UNDT Judge Buffa’s jurisprudence on sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.
Despite having issued four separate UNDT judgments in sexual harassment, assault and exploitation cases in which he exonerated the perpetrators, rescinded their terminations, and awarded up to two years’ compensation in lieu, even after every single one was subsequently vacated by UNAT, UNDT Judge Buffa appears determined to persist in what can only be described as a judicial crusade to rehabilitate UN staff members found to have sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, raped or exploited their female colleagues.
What is glaring is not merely that UNAT has repeatedly nullified his judgments, it is that Judge Buffa continues to ignore, dismiss, or otherwise sidestep UNAT jurisprudence in areas where UNAT has already resolved the legal issue and articulated binding standards. The jurisprudential message from UNAT to Judge Buffa has been categorical. Yet Judge Buffa proceeds as though these precedents are advisory rather than binding, as though the legal reasoning of higher judicial authority is optional, and as though his personal interpretive framework supersedes the institutional legal regime.
In earlier writings dating back to 2023, I asked: What explains such a sustained departure from appellate jurisprudence? By what logic does a sitting judge repeatedly arrive at interpretations that UNAT has already rejected? How could a judge charged with administering the internal justice system arrive at legal conclusions so dramatically misaligned with the Organization’s zero-tolerance framework and repeatedly contradicted by appellate review?
At the time, I argued that the cultural priors and embedded social beliefs of the Judge, particularly those regarding gender, sexuality, power, and consent were not incidental to his rulings, but constitutive of them. I referenced the 2007 Duke Law Research Paper by Jennifer Zimbroff, which observed:
“studies of sexual harassment perception are not intended to answer whether any specific plaintiff’s circumstances satisfy the legal criteria for sexual harassment. Rather, they serve to demonstrate the potential differences with which victims, alleged perpetrators, judges, and juries perceive and consider appropriate handling of unwelcome sexualized approaches. Such studies may demonstrate how the cultural affiliations of different judges and jurors will influence their perceptions of whether sexual harassment occurred and, if so, was responded to appropriately.”
This is manifest in Judge Buffa’s judicial output. After reviewing all of Judge Buffa’s UNDT judgments in which he nullified or declined to substantiate sexual misconduct, all of which were later vacated entirely by UNAT, the pattern is unmistakable. His legal reasoning consistently reflects a viewpoint that normalizes male sexual entitlement and places the burden of reaction, resistance, articulation, and proof upon female victims. In so doing, he treats women’s testimony as unreliable, their silence as consent, their embarrassment as acquiescence, and their reluctance to report as insignificance.
In other words: his jurisprudence reveals a consistently gendered epistemology of disbelief.
The UNDT Code of Conduct for Judges requires fairness in proceedings and explicitly prohibits sexist or discriminatory conduct. UNDT Judges are obligated to uphold the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the ICCPR documents rooted in dignity, bodily autonomy, and equality before the law. Further, UNDT Judges are appointed by the General Assembly upon recommendations of the Internal Justice Council in consultation with OHR.
We therefore ask the Internal Justice Council and the General Assembly directly:
How can a UNDT judge whose judgments repeatedly erode the credibility of women reporting sexual misconduct; judgments that have systemically and consecutively been repudiated by UNAT, be said to meet the standard of impartiality and integrity expected under the UNDT judicial mandate?
Judge Buffa is not advancing the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance framework for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, and sexual abuse. In fact, his most recent judgment makes one reality brutally clear: the price that women pay when they report sexual misconduct is professional risk, reputational threat, and exposure to retaliation, while the alleged perpetrator is offered the jurisprudential shelter of Judge Buffa’s reasoning.
Unless a case of sexual violence meets an almost impossible standard (one approaching forensic documentation) Judge Buffa’s instinct is to clear the accused. Whether the staff member verbalized sexual comments, circulated pornographic imagery, engaged in invasive contact, or weaponized professional authority through sexual innuendo and sexual acts, Judge Buffa appears unwilling to attribute legal gravity to the act unless the violence is so explicit as to be undeniable.
May we therefore ask the Internal Justice Council and OHR: what safeguards are in place to ensure that UNDT judges, who are entrusted with adjudicating claims of harassment and abuse, do not themselves perpetuate the very attitudes that normalize such misconduct?
How can we ensure that those chosen to sit in judgment are truly aligned with the Organization’s legal commitments and ethical imperatives?
In case after case, Judge Buffa introduces interpretive thresholds that shift the burden of proof onto women and dilute the legal definition of harassment into a form of harmless social mischief.
In Conteh, Conteh v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. UNDT/2020/189 (6 November 2020), Judge Buffa built a narrative of minimization around the perpetrator’s conduct. He characterized the groping, grabbing, and physical intrusion into women’s bodies as merely “episodic,” “not threatening,” and “without specific consequences,” even noting approvingly that the staff member “gave up the harassment when he understood that his ‘rude advances’ were not accepted.” In Judge Buffa’s view, the misconduct had “no impact (or at least a very limited impact) on the work environment,” and, most revealingly, he opined that “the heaviest disciplinary sanctions would perhaps have been appropriate if the investigators had found evidence that the Applicant had engaged in sexual relationships with his subordinates but they did not.”
Judge Buffa’s standard in Conteh appears to be: unless the misconduct crosses into explicit sexual intercourse, it cannot warrant dismissal. And so he rescinded the termination decision and ordered compensation in lieu.
UNAT’s response was unequivocal UNAT Judgment (appeal, reversal) Conteh v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2021-UNAT-1171.It found that Judge Buffa’s limitation of termination “only to instances of inappropriate sexual relationships” was “without authority or merit” and actively “undermines the broad spectrum of sexual harassment that can and does occur.” UNAT went on to reassert a core legal principle:
“there should be no requirement for the conduct to be repetitive,” and “one instance could conceptually be sufficient” for separation. Moreover, UNAT held that sexual harassment “does not require any concrete or palpable result,” and that “unwelcome advances and inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues such as touching their body parts… are per se grave enough to cause harm.” It further reminded Judge Buffa that the offence is not dependent on “ill intent,” nor on the frequency of professional interactions, which are “a minor element” under a zero-tolerance policy.
Conteh thus reveals the core of Buffa’s jurisprudence: sexual harm, in his view, must be physically extreme, repeated, or visibly harmful in order to qualify as harassment. The effect is consistent: a systemic raising of evidentiary thresholds for victims and a lowering of accountability thresholds for perpetrators. Conteh is the jurisprudential seed from which Judge Buffa’s future exonerations sprouted.
The Szvetko judgment exposes Judge Buffa’s cultural comfort with sexualized male behaviour disguised as mischief. Here, Judge Buffa treated comments such as “your breasts look like mountains” and inviting a female colleague to imagine the “pleasure” of water jets “between a woman’s legs,” and even the showing of nude male genitalia, as “euphoric jokes,” “boutades,” and as behaviour akin to “a boy on a school trip,” devoid of any intention to humiliate.
Once again, Judge Buffa’s eye is on the man, his mood, his context, his lack of maliciousness, rather than the impact on the women subjected to this conduct. The degradation of a professional woman into a sexual object is framed as childish play. Judge Buffa concluded that the misconduct “was not severe in nature” and again portrayed the perpetrator as merely exuberant rather than predatory.
UNAT’s reversal was devastating (UNAT Judgment (appeal, reversal): Balint Szvetko v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1311). It found Judge Buffa’s interpretation “speculative,” noted that he had “disregarded the evidence,” and reaffirmed the applicable legal framework. Crucially, UNAT held that this behaviour “exhibits a disposition which caused the complainants significant discomfort and anxiety and impacted their ongoing professional relationship,” and that Judge Buffa’s conclusion that the misconduct lacked severity because it occurred briefly was legally untenable. The Tribunal rejected Judge Buffa’s trivialization of pornographic exposure, stating plainly that “showing a colleague a picture of a penis can cause offence or humiliation,” and that “all individuals are entitled to be free of this kind of puerile behaviour.” The conduct, UNAT clarified, “violates the obligation of an international civil servant to uphold the highest standard of integrity,” and “naturally would undermine professional confidence.”
Here, Judge Buffa’s habitual logic becomes unmistakable: women must tolerate sexually explicit intrusion so long as the perpetrator can be framed as joking,playful,inebriated, or boyish. It is the judicial romanticization of male entitlement. Under Judge Buffa’s lens, women are expected to be resilient, unaffected, unhumiliated, and if they are humiliated, it is dismissed as hypersensitivity.
Szvetko mirrors Conteh in dismantling the same Buffa principle: that a woman must prove explicit distress, explicit damage, explicit consequences to her career rather than simply the fact of being sexually objectified in the workplace.
In AAE, Judge Buffa’s dissenting opinion exposes the apex of his judicial perspective on sexual violence. Faced with a case in which a D-1 Director raped a colleague after she told him she did not want sex and attempted to leave, Judge Buffa turned to the woman’s behaviour; not to the man’s actions, as the decisive factor. He invoked her “friendly disposition” as “exculpatory,” and he questioned how rape could occur when the woman did not scream, did not physically struggle, and did not reiterate her objection multiple times. His reasoning assimilates friendliness into invitation and silence into consent. It asks, implicitly: why didn’t she resist harder?
But your Honour:
A Kiss is not a Free Pass for Sex. A kiss is not a contract. and;
Silence under shock is not consent.
UNAT’s full bench demolished this reasoning UNAT Judgment (full bench): AAE v. Secretary-General, Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1332. It held that the Director had engaged in “non-consensual sex… amounting to sexual assault,” and that relying on tacit consent or the absence of repeated objections was legally invalid. UNAT affirmed that sexual assault can occur “without threats of violence,” particularly within a power-imbalanced relationship, and accepted the victim’s explanation that she did not scream because she was “in shock,” “ashamed,” and “cognizant of her precarious situation.”
Here, as in Conteh and Szvetko, Judge Buffa’s analysis repeatedly turns to female reaction, rather than male action, as the evidentiary hinge. The woman carries the burden of proving fear; the man is relieved of the burden of proving respect. The judicial gaze is male-centric: what mattered to Judge Buffa was not whether the man violated the woman’s autonomy, but whether the woman reacted loudly enough to convince him.
In the Makeen case, Judge Buffa again applied his consistent judicial relativism around sexual harm, this time in the context of sexual exploitation. Here, the perpetrator was a 53-year-old married UN staff member who repeatedly engaged in sexual acts with an 18-year-old impoverished woman who cleaned his home, cooked for him, and was economically dependent on him. Yet Judge Buffa saw no power dynamic, no coercive context, no vulnerability, only “consensual” sexual interaction “pertaining to the Applicant’s private life.”
This reasoning is revealing: Judge Buffa treats power disparity as irrelevant if the victim technically agreed to be present, or did not explicitly object, or, in this case, was merely young, poor, unprotected, and dependent. He reads “consent” where the law sees coercion by circumstance.
“Consent is immaterial to the offence of sexual exploitation and abuse.”
With that single sentence, UNAT dismantled Judge Buffa’s entire operative premise. It went further:
“V01 was unable to fully consent due to the unequal relationship and power imbalance that existed between her and Mr. Makeen.”
Here, UNAT stated plainly what Judge Buffa refused to see: that consent is not a matter of mere verbal or physical acquiescence, but must be free of dependency, intimidation, and deprivation. The Tribunal stressed that the perpetrator held “a position of trust and support,” and that the victim’s “economic and social status put her in a state of dependency.”
UNAT also directly contradicted Judge Buffa’s claim that the misconduct pertained to private life:
“the duty of staff members to act with integrity… extends to their conduct both within and outside the workplace due to the potential reputational damage their adverse actions may cause to the Organization.”
Once again, Judge Buffa shielded a male UN actor by shrinking the scope of accountability to the boundaries of the bedroom, as though sexual access to a dependent teenager employed in one’s home were merely private recreation. UNAT restored the definition of sexual abuse to its legal and ethical meaning: exploitation of vulnerability, not romantic interaction. This case illustrates transactional sex under conditions of imbalance, dependency, and vulnerability. If a young woman cooks your meals, cleans your floors, and is financially dependent on you, she cannot freely consent.
Judge Buffa’s approach in Makeen reveals his intellectual consistency: in Conteh, he could not see harm unless it disrupted work; in Szvetko, he could not see harassment unless accompanied by ill intent; in AAE, he could not see rape unless force or screaming occurred; and in Makeen, he could not see exploitation unless the victim explicitly vocalized objection despite dependency.
All these judgments clearly point to repetition of Judge Buffa’s cultural assumptions about women’s consent.
And then we arrive at Samarasinha, the newest UNDT judgment issued in July 2025; the one where Judge Buffa again cleared a male senior official at the D-1 level despite testimonies from multiple women and corroborating diplomatic witnesses.
Here the pattern repeats so perfectly it becomes almost formulaic. Even though there were clear shortcomings in the OIOS investigation, Judge Buffa went on to dismiss another allegation of sexual assault because the victim was drunk, because the recollection was not detailed twelve years later, because she had “flirtatious behaviour” as though intoxication invalidates memory and flirting invalidates violation.
Judge Buffa wrote:
“a recollection… in a context of flirtatious behaviour… cannot substantiate an accusation of sexual assault, notably where the recollection of the events are not detailed and not lived by a sober person.”
Once again, Judge Buffa implies that a woman who was intoxicated cannot be sexually assaulted because she cannot remember explicitly enough to satisfy him.
He even dismissed the victim’s account of being pinned in bed as “weak,” and deemed the surrounding allegations “almost meaningless” and “without relevance.” He trivialized repeated physical contact, the staring at breasts, and the delivery of invitations laced with sexual undertones as “insignificant.” He wrote that these acts lacked “sexual connotation,” as though a senior official touching a woman’s hips and waist “while inebriated” somehow falls within acceptable social interaction in Judge Buffa’s mental universe.
And most tellingly, he declared that even cumulatively, these acts were “unable to substantiate… a behaviour of a gravity able to justify a measure like ALWOP.”
In other words: even if multiple women say it, even if they say it over time, even if external witnesses corroborate it, Judge Buffa does not find it serious.
Across these judgments, a consistent evidentiary posture emerges: women’s testimony is approached with skepticism, while male conduct is interpreted through a lens of benign intent. The result is a repeated downgrading of coercive acts into social misunderstandings and a systemic reluctance to attribute legal weight to female experience. This judicial orientation constitutes an epistemic bias, a presumption of male innocence that persists even in the face of multiple corroborating accounts and sustained patterns of behaviour.
This consistent minimization of sexual misconduct, repeated across Conteh, Szvetko, Makeen, AAE, and now Samarasinha, constitutes what I refer to as the Buffa Doctrine.
The United Nations has repeatedly affirmed that it upholds a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual harassment, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation. Yet in practice, zero tolerance is meaningless when judicial interpretation becomes a filter that drains these standards of substance. The question is no longer whether Judge Buffa’s judgments are legally flawed: UNAT has already established that by vacating four of them and will likely do the same with the fifth. The question is whether the internal justice architecture will continue to tolerate a judicial approach that repeatedly diminishes the gravity of sexual misconduct and re-centres sympathy on the perpetrators rather than the victims.
The Judges of the UNDT are not freelancers. They are appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Internal Justice Council, precisely because the legitimacy of their office derives not from personal opinion but from fidelity to the Organization’s legal framework. When a UNDT judge develops an identifiable pattern of jurisprudence that contradicts UNAT’s established standards, repeatedly, and in the same direction, affecting the same class of victims, it is no longer a matter of individual interpretation, it becomes a matter of institutional accountability.
Judge Buffa’s judicial reasoning, across these cases, does not advance the UN’s commitments under the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the ICCPR. It does not uphold the Secretary-General’s professed principles of zero tolerance. It does not protect women in the system who report sexual misconduct. It does, however, provide a signal, loud, clear, unmistakable, to every perpetrator who might consider testing boundaries: that if their actions fall short of cinematic brutality, there is a judge who may well reinterpret coercion as misunderstanding, predation as exuberance, and violation as miscommunication.
So we must ask: how many times must a judge be reversed: four? five? six? before someone in authority acknowledges the pattern?
When does the Internal Justice Council intervene? When does the General Assembly exercise its oversight responsibility?
And how many women in the UN must endure professional retaliation, reputational harm, and psychological damage because a judge’s cultural biases consistently discount their experiences?
Precedent is the true expression of judicial philosophy. And Buffa’s precedents: overturned, contradicted, and repudiated, speak to a persistent bias incompatible with impartial adjudication.
“I would not let the UN teach me morals. Having a baby in Africa is nothing. Where one has a baby, she wanted a baby. How many people have babies here? The UN does not understand that. The UN thinks that she has been victimized by the UN staff who came. No, it’s the opposite.”
This was the shocking statement of a MONUSCO international staff member to the UN tribunal after he was dismissed for sexual exploitation and abuse of a local woman in Goma.
Last week, the UNDT rendered a damning judgment UNDT/2025/089, Compaore v. Secretary-General, which evidences a systemic collapse of compliance with the principle of “do no harm” among UN international staff and highlights the widening gap between the Organisation’s proclaimed norms and its operational realities.
What the Tribunal recounts next reveals a level of predation that documents the institutional inability to give effect to every policy, every training, and every public assertion that the Organisation upholds the principle of ‘do no harm”.
“The staff member met the local woman when she was selling vegetables on the roadside in Goma took her number and, within days, he was having regular sexual intercourse with her.
He knew that there was a notable status differential between him, an international United Nations staff member and the SEA survivor, a seller on the market in Goma.
The woman earned between USD 10 and USD 25 per month… she was also supporting her ten-year-old son. By contrast, the staff member’s net salary was approximately USD 14,000 per month.
He visited her at her house and started giving her significant sums of money up to half of her month’s earnings as well as promised to help opening her own business…
…when the victim informed him that she became pregnant as a result, he reacted angrily, and called her a ‘prostitute’ and ‘thief,’ telling her to leave his house.
He then took the local woman far to meet with a pharmacist that he knew, using a UN vehicle. At the location of the pharmacist, he asked her to do a pregnancy test, which was positive.
He then asked the pharmacist how they could arrange an abortion even though the local woman informed him that she did not want to abort. He then organized a meeting at a hotel in Goma, during which the pharmacist pressured the local woman to get an abortion; and he gave her US$ 400.00 (i.e. the equivalent of four months’ income or seven months’ rent for her) to financially incentivize her to get an abortion.
After giving her the money for an abortion, he filed a criminal complaint against her, accusing her of harassing him and of claiming money from him. In his complaint, he requested the police to verify if she was still pregnant, while being aware that abortion is a criminal offence in the DRC.
He then made the local woman sign an agreement in exchange of USD 8,000 payment. As part of this agreement, the local woman also signed a letter withdrawing allegations against him which were then pending in the local court.”
I mean if this is the outcome of years of UN training on “do no harm” then we are forced to confront the undeniable truth: something is not merely broken: something is rotten at the core. And perhaps the deeper tragedy is this: people have become so accustomed to this pattern of abuse that they have grown desensitized to it. These cases no longer shock; they are absorbed as routine background noise.
We must ask ourselves: who is reading these stories? Who is outraged? And why is this not shaking the Organisation to its foundations?
What is truly galling is that the international staff member stood before the Tribunal and insisted the relationship was consensual. The Tribunal, drawing on Makeen 2024-UNAT-1461, para. 52, citing Lucchini rejected this narrative entirely, establishing that in the face of glaring economic deprivation and an overwhelming power differential, genuine consent was impossible. Sex in such a situation is inherently coercive and any claimed consent collapses under legal and ethical scrutiny.
The Tribunal also held that the survivor’s “withdrawal of the complaints in domestic proceedings, following an $8,000 financial settlement,” does not absolve the perpetrator nor constrain the UN’s authority to act, since national acquittals do not extinguish administrative responsibility.
The staff member disputed the proportionality of his dismissal, arguing that a mere reprimand or censure would have sufficed. This position attempts to recast predatory conduct as a correctable misjudgment rather than misconduct of such severity that it renders continued employment untenable. It is a defence that collapses on its face when measured against the Organisation’s core obligations and basic standards of conduct.
The problem is just like the genocide in Palestine, people have become used to harm so much that these stories pass almost unremarkable. And the UN surely counts on this.
The Secretary-General’s report reduces survivors to numerical entries processed through a statistical frame that neutralizes emotional and moral response. As with the enumeration of Palestinian casualties, human beings are converted into data units. Numerical abstraction becomes the mechanism of desensitization.
Let me give you a few examples of what the dashboard reveals. Under the category of UN staff and related personnel:
Less than a week ago, on 20 and 21 November, two separate allegations were recorded against WHO personnel for sexual exploitation.
On 30 October, an allegation was filed against IOM for rape of a child by a UN Volunteer.
On 23, 21 and 20 October, three distinct allegations were filed for sexual assault of children under 18 in both IOM and UNRWA.
According to the same data, for 2024, children constituted 15% of victims, and disturbingly, an additional 17% were listed as “victim age unknown.” That alone illustrates how incomplete or deliberately under-specified the reporting is. For the same year, rape accounted for 13% of allegations, and sexual assault 20%. Assistance was provided in only 20% of cases, with the remainder categorized on the dashboard as “victim declined,” “victim did not seek assistance,” “victim unidentified,” or “victim unreachable.” This is the measure in practice of “do no harm” and of the supposed restoration of victims’ dignity.
Then there is the separate category of implementing partners whose personnel are not formally under UN authority but who execute UN-funded projects.
On 4, 8, 9, 19 and 28 November 2025, five allegations were lodged for sexual assault, two involving children under 18 in connection with UNICEF-supported activities.
On 9, 14, 16 and 19 October 2025, another four allegations were recorded, three of which were also for assault of children under 18, again linked to UNICEF-related projects.
I mean yes, these individuals are not UN staff; they are personnel of implementing partners. But the question is unavoidable: is the UN exercising due diligence over the entities it entrusts with its mandate?
Does the UN engage implementing partners to improve conditions for children, or are these partnerships, through negligence or indifference, creating new avenues for their abuse?
In 2025 so far, there have been 41 allegations of rape, of which 37 involved children under 18. These were linked to projects implemented for:
UNICEF (14)
WFP (13)
WHO (4)
UNOPS (4)
UNHCR (3)
OCHA (1)
In 2024, children under 18 accounted for at least 28% of all SEA allegations and that figure is conservative, given that an additional 24% of victims were listed as “age unknown.”
Rape constituted 12% of total allegations that year.
Then there is the category of peacekeeping and special political missions, where rape of children is clearly systemic. It is easier to avert one’s gaze, but perhaps this is precisely where scrutiny must intensify.
And here I am also analyzing numbers. This is the trap inherent in quantitative reporting: patterns and ratios take over, and the individual victims disappear. Behind each statistic is a life: a child with a name, a family, a history, a future now fractured.
Who explains to a 10-year-old boy that he will be alright after being raped? Who provides care and schooling for a child born of sexual exploitation? Who treats the psychological, physical, and social scars inflicted by those who arrived under the blue flag claiming protection?
Why are we still here? Why are we reading these findings while maintaining the fiction that the UN enforces a zero-tolerance policy on sexual exploitation and abuse? Each year we hear the same prescriptions: more funding, more training, more risk-mapping, more awareness. Yet the same patterns recur.
The Secretary-General’s report to the General Assembly is extensive and data-heavy, but this is precisely the problem: its architecture buries the actual crisis under layers of metrics and operational jargon. And there, almost unnoticed in the middle of the document, sits the real revelation:
In 2024, 64,585 United Nations staff members responded to the annual perception survey on protection from sexual exploitation and abuse. Of those, 3.65% (2,360 people) stated that it was acceptable to pay for sex, and close to 1% (555) indicated that it was acceptable to engage in sexual activity with a child, with one-third of those respondents occupying supervisory roles.
This alone reveals how embedded and normalized the culture of sexual exploitation and abuse has become within the UN and this does not even account for uniformed personnel, national police contingents, or military forces contributed by Member States to peacekeeping missions.
So why is the situation not improving and in several respects deteriorating? Policies are revised, bulletins updated, special coordination units created, but the real deficit lies in accountability, and not only accountability for the direct perpetrator.
And what about the perpetrators who are shielded rather than sanctioned? What about the cases quietly buried because they involve personnel with the right connections or the right nationality? What about internal directives to “avoid reputational exposure” that override the rights of victims?
The UN pursues low-level offenders as symbolic sacrifices while preserving the machinery that protects enablers, decision-makers, and silent bystanders. The Organization reports terminations as proof of resolve, yet accountability is never directed at those within HR, Legal, Ethics, or senior management who intervened to suppress complaints, stall proceedings, or intimidate victims. That is where the deeper accountability lies, and that is precisely where none is exercised.
Why is there no scrutiny of the senior officials who instruct HR and Legal to make cases “go away”? What about the victims who never report, either out of fear or because the system has taught them that nothing will happen? What about the managers whose first instinct is to protect their own reporting profile before the Security Council or the General Assembly? And what of the Legal and HR officers who invoke “insufficient evidence” as a procedural shield as though the absence of formal proof were not itself often the product of investigative indifference or institutional suppression?
The Secretary-General’s own report acknowledges that since 2006, approximately 750 paternity and child support claims arising from UN peace operations have been recorded with over 500 still unresolved. Most Member States have failed to take any meaningful steps toward resolution. Meanwhile, the children born of these abuses, many now approaching adulthood, remain without schooling, without healthcare, without legal recognition, and trapped in lifelong stigma. They live in conditions of uncertainty and marginalization, the direct human legacy of UN negligence.
Protracted investigation and disciplinary timelines are cited as “systemic challenges,” but they function as structural impediments to justice. Delays in inquiry, opaque handling of outcomes, and the absence of visible consequences reinforce a culture of impunity and corrode the Organization’s credibility. Even now, there remains no real accountability for those in leadership who failed in their obligation to act. The burden falls only on the isolated offender, never on those who enabled, ignored, or suppressed the cases.
Alarmingly, in 2024, the internal survey itself recorded a stark indicator of institutional distrust: 6% of UN respondents,roughly 3,700 staff expressed no confidence in leadership’s ability to address sexual exploitation and abuse, up from 3% the previous year.The doubling reflects a measurable deterioration in trust in leadership.
The reality we must confront is this: a child in Bangui may flee from what he perceives as the threat (the militia or armed group) and run instead toward the UN blue helmets, whom he believes to be protectors. But the risk now is that he runs straight into the arms of his abuser. The UN’s personnel (civilian and military) leverage the UN’s image as a guardian and savior to secure access to vulnerable populations. They weaponize the very trust invested in the UN.
This is what makes the situation intolerable: the UN is not a bystander to these violations but the mechanism through which access to victims is enabled. When trust itself becomes the instrument of abuse, the UN mission has already failed at its fundamental duty: protection
This week, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a baffling judgment to say the very least, Novo v. Secretary-General, UNDT/2025/098 (26 November 2025), in which it rescinded the decision of termination for a former UNICEF staff member who was charged with serious misconduct for sexual harassment (and unauthorized activities).
This judgment raises serious concerns about the UNDT’s understanding of power dynamics in the workplace and about the extent to which such rulings will discourage future reporting of sexual harassment in the UN.
The judgment itself is 71 pages long and refers to detailed witness examination, cross-examination, and OIOS interview transcripts. Despite sexually harassing three female staff/consultants (all of whom filed complaints) and despite corroborating witnesses, the judge chose to believe the supervisor’s version, using a copy-paste approach to dismiss all allegations of sexual harassment, save for the unauthorized outside activities.
The Tribunal established that in one incident the staff member approached the female supervisee at a gym while she was engaged in routine physical exercise and made remarks in Bosnian implying that she was instructed by her husband to work on her “booty” using colloquial language. The perpetrator explained that he was observing her form because he noticed some technical issues during her deadlift, and he mentioned that her husband might have advised her on her technique to make her booty bigger.
In weighing whether this constituted sexual harassment by a supervisor, the judgment unbelievably reads:
“The question before this Tribunal is whether the Applicant’s behavior, unprofessional staring at V03’s posterior and the statement about her husband’s instructions, constitutes harassment or sexual harassment. In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s conduct must be evaluated in context. The act of staring appears to be a pattern of habitual, subconscious observation rather than any sexual gesture or act.”
The judge went on to justify the comments by stating that the act of staring at her booty might have been:
“reflecting an awkward attempt at social interaction rather than misconduct”
And:
“the Tribunal acknowledges V03’s feelings of discomfort but considers that the subjective offence alone does not establish harassment or sexual harassment; particularly when there is no objective evidence that the behavior was sexual or intimidating. Indeed, the Tribunal considers that, once more, the Applicant displayed unprofessional and intrusive behavior, but not one of a sexual nature.”
So for all UN staff exercising at the gym, the next time your supervisor stares directly at your backside while deadlifting and comments on your “booty” don’t get uncomfortable, because according to the UNDT, it’s just social interaction… with your backside..
In another disturbing episode, the supervisor gave a different staff member (a superviosee also) a copy of the book: “Sex and Lies: True stories of women’s intimate lives in the Arab world” by Leila Slimani claiming it was “relevant to her work.”
The book is about the sexual experiences of women in Morocco and the Arab world. And as The Guardian described it, Slimani “returns to north Africa to explore sex, pornography and hypocrisy.”
The supervisee testified that her work had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual narratives, Arab women’s intimate experiences, or Morocco. She explained that she did not challenge her supervisor at the time due to power dynamics being at the lowest rank, dependent on him for contract renewal and fearing that complaints would go unaddressed in the isolated Bihać duty station.
The judge correctly established the facts but once again dismissed the allegation, filtering it through his own selective perception of harassment. According to the judge, even though the supervisee found the gift deeply inappropriate, he adopted the supervisor’s absurd justification that the gift was an act of “educational sharing,” potentially useful to humanitarian work:
“whether the book is professionally relevant can be subjective, and in some humanitarian contexts materials concerning women’s intimate experiences or trafficking may bear on protection, gender-based violence, or cultural understanding relevant to child protection work.”
The judge then criticized the supervisee’s internal reaction by stating:
“V02’s assessment of the book’s inappropriateness was based on her perception of the contents of the book, which, in turn, was based on her interpretation of the title, back cover, and online summaries.”
And dismissed the claim by concluding:
“gifting of the book does not meet the objective threshold for harassment or sexual harassment. There is no evidence of sexual intent, no pattern of sexualized conduct tied to the gifting, and no demonstration that the act interfered with VO2’s work or created a hostile work environment.”
So, if your supervisor hands you a book titled “Sex and Lies” you are apparently expected to ignore the “Sex” part, trust his enlightened intellectual intentions, and focus on theoretical cultural anthropology. After all, if the UNDT judge can turn a blind eye, so can you.
Then, in three separate incidents involving two supervisees, the staff member commented to one woman that she preferred “strong muscular men” asked another, while walking behind her:
“How tall are you? You have a very nice height for a woman”,
and later at a bar in Bihać, leaned too close to her, invading her personal space, asking if she would like to “ride in an expensive car if driven by a handsome man, and telling her she was the type of woman used to men doing favors for her”.
And in all three incidents, the judge dismissed the allegations.
On the comment about interest in muscular men, the judge reasoned:
“the remark was a casual, somewhat awkward comment about V03’s personal preferences. The fact that V03 felt uncomfortable is acknowledged and is relevant. However, subjective discomfort alone does not establish harassment or sexual harassment.”
So next time your supervisor randomly offers his unsolicited psychoanalysis of your taste in male body types, maybe you should reply, “Thank you for your professional assessment.” Because apparently, commentary on your intimate personal preferences is part of your job.
And when your supervisor asks about your height and compliments you on it, while following behind you, do not mistake it for predatory interest. The UNDT judge insists:
“comment is addressed to physical stature only, and occurred in a social, informal context involving several colleagues”…
“unwelcome and unwise conduct … falls short of proving the requisite objective severity or sexual character.”
The extent to which this judge fails to grasp the nuances of sexual harassment as experienced by women is staggering. For the vast majority of women, sexual harassment is not confined to physical contact. It is anything that intrudes upon their bodily autonomy and personal dignity: the invasive stare, the unsolicited comment about one’s curves or “booty,” the remark about one’s taste in men, the book handed with a knowing smirk that centers sexuality as its theme. This is precisely how predators operate, not with overt groping, but through a steady drip of boundary violations and insinuations.
Why should my supervisor be commenting on my physical appearance? Why should he be giving me a book titled “Sex and Lies”, a book which TheGuardian characterized as “exploring sex, pornography and hypocrisy”? Why should he be asking me if I prefer “strong muscular men”? Why is he leaning in, crowding my space, speaking low and close, as if intimacy is assumed?
And the fundamental question:
Why is any of this taking place inside a UN workplace that claims to champion dignity, equality, and respect?
Many men in the UN derive perverse satisfaction from making women uncomfortable. They thrive on the microaggressions, the innuendos, the baiting comments that hover just below the disciplinary threshold. They get away with it precisely because of the ambiguity, the plausible deniability. And now, emboldened by judgments like this, they will feel even safer doing so.
These men indulge in a quiet vocation: testing how far they can intrude into the bodies, space, and psyche of the women they supervise knowing full well the power imbalance protects them. And instead of confronting this pattern, too many judges prefer to dissect each incident into sterile fragments, stripping away the lived experience of women and repackaging predatory behavior as “awkward social interaction” or “habitual staring.”
Well, here is the reality:
We are not concerned with whether he meant it sexually, poetically, or subconsciously.
We are concerned with whether a professional environment exists where women can work without being sexualized, analyzed, or targeted.
Women do not join the UN hoping their supervisor will inquire about their body shape or sexual preferences. They join believing that equality and respect are more than decorative slogans painted onto banners and mission statements.
But clearly, in the eyes of this UNDT judgment, it is all just “much ado about nothing.”
This reasoning also stands in direct contradiction with binding jurisprudence of the UN internal justice system itself. In Hallal UNDT/2011/046, para. 55, later affirmed by UNAT 2012-UNAT-207, the Tribunal held:
“in sexual harassment cases, credible oral victim testimony alone may be fully sufficient to support a finding of serious misconduct, without further corroboration being required”
And UNAT confirmed:
“The Dispute Tribunal did not err in law in giving full evidentiary weight to the complainant’s oral testimony absent documentary corroboration.”
The jurisprudence affirms that victim testimony is legally probative and sufficient to ground a finding of misconduct. By dismissing these women’s testimony because it did not include “objective evidence,” the judge was defying settled jurisprudence. A legal standard already affirmed at the appellate level.
This inconsistency between jurisprudential requirement and judicial practice demands scrutiny. For while the Tribunal applies an intent-based threshold in this case, the Organization simultaneously asserts a trauma-aware, victim-centred approach in its reporting to the GA. The UN itself reports to the General Assembly the following passage in the Secretary-General’s report (Report of the Secretary-General, “Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse,” A/79/789, 17 February 2025, para. 5).:
“For example, when the nine judges of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal visited the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) in June 2024 as part of their induction into the United Nations administration of justice system, they were informed about measures in place to prevent and respond to sexual exploitation and abuse and had the opportunity to hear from the Special Coordinator and the Victims’ Rights Advocate. The aim was to provide the judges with first-hand insights into the complexities and challenges associated with delivering protection from sexual exploitation and abuse on the ground, including the commitment to a victim-centred approach. The Special Coordinator and the Victims’ Rights Advocate also raised concerns about the impact, especially on victims, of the protracted administrative and judicial decision-making.
Following the mission, the judges’reflections informed discussions and recommendations at the Third Meeting of Investigatory Bodies on Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment convened jointly by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the United Nations Evaluation Group in June 2024. The Special Coordinator and the Victims’ Rights Advocate are planning to conduct similar information sessions with the judges of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal during a mission to the Central African Republic scheduled to take place in early 2025.”
This is a formal declaration to Member States that the UNDT judges have been exposed to and educated on the lived realities of sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly the effects on victims. The UN uses this text to demonstrate compliance with a “victim-centred approach” implying that judicial interpretation would be informed by awareness of trauma, power asymmetry, and vulnerability.
Yet in this UNICEF judgment, the judicial reasoning shows no application of that mandate. The judge did not adopt a victim-centered evidentiary lens. Instead, he treated the testimony of three women as insufficient because it lacked “objective” proof directly contradicting the Hallal standard, which recognizes that in sexual harassment cases, victim testimony can stand alone as probative evidence.
This illustrates a striking contradiction: before the GA, the UN asserts that judges have undergone sensitization on victim impact and reporting challenges. But in practice, the judge reverted to assessing the accused’s conduct through the lens of innocuous intent rather than evaluating its effect on the women. The “victim-centred approach” praised in GA reporting collapses under judicial reasoning that effectively places the burden of proof on victims to demonstrate not only harassment, but the perpetrator’s internal sexual intent.
What the UN presents to Member States as advancement in judicial awareness and responsiveness does not translate into adjudication. The legal framework that the UN claims to be strengthening remains selectively applied and when tested in real cases, defaults back to minimizing, reframing, and dismissing victim testimony.
A justice system that demands victims prove the psychology of their harasser is not victim-centred it is perpetrator-shielding.
And to all the women out there, I say: keep deadlifting.
Mrakic and Lazzarini: A Case Study in How Power Turns Against Palestinians
“It is in the nature of power that it can also lead to abuse.” Immanuel Kant
Few embody Kant’s warning about the corruption of power more clearly than UNDP’s Alessandro Mrakic and the UNRWA Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini whose decisions reveal exactly what happens when authority loses its moral anchor. When they take office, they always start the same way: soft, conciliatory, overly courteous. They walk through the corridors performing friendliness, offering as-salāmu ʿalaykum, ahlan wa sahlan, kulshi tamam? and other canned Arabic pleasantries to appear connected to Palestinians. They charm, they placate, they pretend to “understand the context.” Then comes the classic sequence: charm the staff union, send them to missions and DSA to buy loyalty, promote a few managers to guarantee obedience, and before long, they have secured full control of the entire structure.
And once they feel fully in control, once they believe they are untouchable, that is exactly when the abuse begins. Leaders appointed to serve Palestinian staff lose their sense of reality, responsibility, and basic humanity. They stop seeing the destruction, the fear, the displacement, the daily humiliation Palestinians endure. They stop seeing Palestinians as people with rights, families, trauma, and obligations and start seeing them as obstacles to managerial convenience. Power blinds them, and in their blindness, they act with a level of arrogance that would be unthinkable in any other context.
How else can anyone explain the actions of UNDP Gaza Office Head Alessandro Mrakic? A man with no background in people management decides he can dispose of people like paperwork. He gives direct orders to terminate the contracts of two long-serving Palestinian women ( UNDP Gaza Office staff), one with more than 25 years of service by instructing HR to send an email quoting a clause about contract expiry.
“A temporary or FTA shall expire automatically and without prior notice on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment.”
How does he even dare to use an “expiry” provision in this context? Do Palestinian staff “expire” because they fled bombardment? Because they fled the horror of death and genocide? Do years of service, loyalty, and survival simply evaporate under Mrakic’s administrative convenience?
Mrakic further threatened that their contracts would end on 31 December 2025 if they did not return immediately to Gaza. This, while Israel has categorically barred all Palestinian UN staff who fled Gaza from returning under any circumstances.
At the same time, Mrakic found it perfectly acceptable to pull USD 400,000 from the UNDP Crisis Bureau funds to hire more than 13 international staff three of them Italian, mirroring Mrakic’s own nationality.
Kant warned that power bends toward abuse the moment it is left unchecked. Mrakic is the textbook illustration: rewarding his own network, expanding his own circle, fortifying his own comfort, all while Palestinian staff are punished for fleeing death. Power, once concentrated, turns inward and corrupts. Instead of safeguarding Palestinian staff under bombardment, Mrakic invests in building a protective wall of internationals around himself. Resources flow upward to the privileged, the safe, the Western European, while the Palestinian staff of Gaza pay the price for surviving a war.
It is indeed in the nature of power that it can also lead to abuse. And the abuse becomes so entrenched that officials no longer see the human cost of their decisions nor the consequences for Palestinian lives and livelihoods. They stop recognising that each email they sign off on destroys a Palestinian family’s income, pushes Palestinian women further into precarity, or strips long-serving staff of their dignity. What should be moral decisions become administrative reflexes and the suffering becomes invisible to them, because they no longer look for it.
Take Philippe Lazzarini, proudly tweeting a few weeks ago:
“With the ceasefire in place, UNRWA is stepping up its back-to-learning programme both in person and online.”
This, while Lazarrini personally decided to withhold the salaries of more than 600 UNRWA teachers over 400 of them women because they fled Gaza under bombardment. These same teachers continued teaching remotely and they are fully eligible for teaching the online learning programme he tweets so proudly about.
And all of this, while Lazzarini himself works remotely from Geneva, fully benefiting from Alternate Working Modalities (AWM), a policy designed, inter alia , to protect staff during war, insecurity, and displacement. Lazzarini enjoys every safeguard, every exemption, every layer of protection the system offers, while denying those same protections to the Palestinian women and men who kept UNRWA’s education system alive under airstrikes. He promotes online learning publicly, yet refuses to grant the Palestinian staff delivering it access to Alternate Working Modalities (AWM) a UN-wide entitlement available to all staff, specifically created for circumstances exactly like Gaza.
Every international staff member from Gaza and the West Bank has been relocated, placed on AWM, and is now working from the comfort of their own homes, laptops open, coffee mugs beside them, fluffy cushions behind their backs. Meanwhile, Palestinian UNRWA teachers are struggling to survive in Egypt, living in uncertainty, displacement and financial precarity, and still denied the same right.
Lazzarini writes glowing op-eds in The Guardian about UNRWA’s “capacity, expertise and community trust,” praising Palestinian teachers, doctors and engineers as the backbone of public service delivery. This public rhetoric earns him credibility with donors and applause in international forums yet no one bothers to ask how he treats his own Palestinian teachers, doctors and engineers behind closed doors.
What has he done to honour the more than 550 UNRWA staff killed by Israel? Why is he withholding the compensation their families are owed; compensation that is the bare minimum gesture of recognition for the staff who died delivering the very services he advertises in his speeches?
No one asks, because no one is interested in Palestinians.
No one asks because no one is interested in Palestinian lives, deaths, or the injustice that follows them into every system, including the UN’s.
The ugly truth is Palestinian suffering does not trend. It does not attract donor pledges. It does not move the powerful. It is tolerated, rationalised, or quietly swept aside. Mrakic and Lazzarini, like hundreds of other senior UN officials are invested in realpolitik, in optics, and survival of their own positions. Principles and moral courage do not feature anywhere in their decision-making.
Who will hold such officials accountable?
Kant warned that the moment power becomes enjoyable, judgment collapses. The pleasure of authority blinds reason, distorts duty, and turns leadership into self-preservation. Nothing corrupts faster than the comfort of power and nothing weakens moral clarity more than believing you are untouchable. When officials start enjoying their position instead of exercising it responsibly, conscience fades, principles dissolve, and the people they were meant to serve become collateral damage.
It is indeed in the nature of power that it can lead to abuse. But abuse is not inevitable. Even now, you can choose differently, if you dare look at what you have already done. Look inward, not outward.
This is a decisive moment, the moment you chose to turn your back on your own Palestinian staff. The people who kept this organization standing in the worst conditions imaginable. The people you were appointed to protect, not discard.
In truth, power didn’t corrupt you: you bent it and weaponised it to serve yourselves, and left your Palestinian staff to pay the price.
Today, the United Nations General Assembly is set to take a decision that will have profound implications for the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and for the integrity of the UN’s internal justice system. The Assembly will vote on the appointment of new judges to the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), and among the nominees recommended for appointment are two Brazilian nationals, one to each court, at the very moment when the ISA, led by a Brazilian Secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho is the subject of urgent legal challenges and procedural failures that have already alarmed observers across the system.
This convergence is a configuration that could potentially influence, concentrate, or even consolidate control over every judicial stage through which ISA administrative actions must pass. Under ISA’s statute, staff members challenge administrative decisions internally before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). JAB’s decisions, including suspension of action requests, merits review, and recommendations, are then appealed directly to UNAT, which serves as the final and only external judicial instance for ISA matters. There is no UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) stage for ISA. The judicial chain is therefore short, fragile, and highly exposed to influence.
These bodies must be independent of each other, institutionally distinct, and free from any perception of national or executive influence. Yet today’s vote is taking place while the ISA’s internal justice system is still recovering from a complete shutdown triggered by the Secretary-General’s earliest decisions, and while new judges, of the same nationality as the Secretary-General (Brazil) are being nominated to the very tribunals that form the appellate pathway for ISA staff.
The vote occurring today has the potential to place a judge of the same nationality as the respondent organization’s executive head in the seat of final judicial authority over that organization. In the midst of the most serious governance crisis the ISA has ever faced, this creates an unavoidable institutional question: Who ultimately controls access to justice at the ISA?
Before her election, in July 2024, Letícia Reis de Carvalho wrapped her candidacy in the rhetoric of transparency and virtue, presenting herself as the reformer who would cleanse the ISA of the opacity she insinuated had plagued it for years:
“For me, the mission of the ISA and the leadership of the ISA is to be a trustee — an honest broker… It should offer transparency of its own procedures… If you are a trustee of the biggest commons on Earth, you cannot be called obscure or opaque in any way. We absolutely need practices that can turn things from opaqueness to transparency.” excerpt from an interview on 4 July 2024
Those promises collapsed almost immediately upon her assumption of office on 1 January 2025.
Within her first forty-eight hours, six staff members ( P-3s, P-4s, a D-1 Chief of Staff, and a D-2) the majority who had signed valid fixed-term contracts in December 2024 and had already entered on duty, received abrupt notifications informing them that ISA would be “unable to complete the onboarding process,” while two others saw their contracts suddenly terminated under the guise of restructuring. Under settled UN administrative law, acceptance of an offer followed by entry on duty completes the appointment. It cannot be undone unilaterally. UNAT has repeatedly held that such withdrawals are unlawful, constitute an abuse of authority, and violate Article 101 of the UN Charter. Nevertheless, these staff members were removed from their posts without reason, due process, or remedy.
As the staff filed urgent motions with the JAB, seeking immediate review of these abrupt decisions, the crisis escalated further. The Secretary-General dismantled the entire JAB structure within days of the motions being submitted. The tribunal ceased to function by 7 January 2025, leaving staff with no internal mechanism and no access to justice during the precise moment in which they needed it.
When UNAT later reviewed this situation, it expressly noted Order No. 2024-591,
“concern that the JAB was dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration,” observed that this had “denying the staff members access to justice in the interim,” and concluded that “the temporary void rendered meaningless the JAB suspension of action mechanism.”
After dismantling the JAB, the ISA simultaneously moved ahead with recruitment to fill the very posts it had unlawfully vacated, thereby obstructing the possibility of reinstatement before the internal justice process had even begun.
Five weeks later, the Secretary-General appointed a new chair of the reconstituted JAB: Martha Halfeld, a former UNAT judge and, crucially, another Brazilian national. This appointment placed a compatriot with appellate-level judicial experience at the head of the very tribunal responsible for reviewing challenges to her own administrative decisions, raising profound concerns about the structural independence of ISA’s internal justice mechanism.
These concerns deepened when, in a separate motion filed by the dismissed D-1 Chief of Staff, UNAT Order No. 2024-592 (Bourrel) revealed that ISA had instructed a private security company to disable her home alarm system in Jamaica while she and her daughter were still residing there. Her sworn affidavit states that this action was intended to intimidate and cause distress, a clear breach of duty of care.
And now we return to today’s vote: a decision that will determine who sits on the UNDT and ultimately who hears appeals at UNAT.
The ISA Secretary-General is Brazilian.
The newly appointed JAB Chair is Brazilian and former UNAT judge.
One recommended UNDT judge is Brazilian.
One recommended UNAT judge is Brazilian.
The question is not whether the nominees are qualified; they are. The question is whether any justice system can afford a configuration in which the respondent (ISA), the internal reviewer (JAB chair), and both appellate judicial authorities (UNDT and UNAT judges) may all be led by nationals of the same Member State at the exact moment that the legality of ISA’s actions is under scrutiny.
The UN’s internal justice system has always held that justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Today’s vote tests that principle. It raises unavoidable questions about recusal, structural safeguards, and the preservation of judicial independence.
How can ISA staff, who have already experienced the erasure of their internal tribunal, trust a system in which each stage of review now appears tethered, directly or indirectly, to a single national nexus?
What assurances will be provided that Brazilian judges will recuse themselves from ISA-related cases?
And what message does this send to the entire UN workforce about the stability, independence, and integrity of the justice system designed to protect them?
And now, as today’s vote proceeds, the configuration becomes even more difficult to ignore. Brazil has nominated one judge to the UNDT and one judge to the UNAT in the same electoral cycle; a former UNAT judge has already been installed as Chair of the ISA’s JAB; the ISA Secretary-General is Brazilian; and, adding an additional layer, one of the current members of the UN Board of Auditors and UN Panel of External Auditors ( Mr. Vital de Rêgo Filho, President of the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts) is also Brazilian, entrusted with overseeing the financial integrity of UN entities, including the ISA.
When the respondent, the internal reviewer, the external auditor, and the proposed appellate judges all converge around a single Member State at the precise moment when the ISA’s governance is under judicial scrutiny, the question becomes unavoidable:
Is Brazil positioning itself to control the ISA’s system of justice and its fiduciary oversight, deliberately or by design? or is the UN system sleepwalking into a concentration of influence it has not yet fully understood?
There are cases that reveal, far more than any policy document or SG speech, what the UN truly is when stripped of its rhetoric. Two recent UNDT Orders Order No. 80 (GVA/2025) and Order No. 110 (GVA/2025), do exactly that.
In May 2021, a long-serving UNEP staff member suffered a severe medical event that left her unable to speak, move, or respond. She became fully dependent on medical technology and constant clinical supervision: tracheostomy management, airway care, rapid-response for oxygen desaturation, seizure monitoring, and PEG-related interventions. For four years, her survival has required the presence of trained intensive-care nurses, operating in a home-based environment that replicates the core functions of a monitored clinical setting.
Her daughter, placed in the position of legal representative, continued coordinating her mother’s care while navigating the UN Worldwide Medical Plan (UNWWP), annual medical reporting, and the system of exceptional reimbursements that had been approved year after year. The UN had accepted, without dispute, that her mother’s condition required uninterrupted 24/7 medical care and multiple therapies exceeding standard plan limits.
The arrangement held. Until it didn’t.
On 24 June 2025, everything shifted. Cigna, the UN Health Insurance Provider, in coordination with the UN Health and Life Insurance Section (HLIS) and the UN Division of Healthcare Management and Occupational Safety and Health (DHMOSH), jointly informed the daughter that, as of 1 July, the services her mother had relied on for four years, services previously acknowledged as clinically essential, would no longer be covered. The reason: these services were now considered “custodial care,” a category excluded by the UN plan.
It was a decisive administrative shift delivered at the precise point where the mother’s ability to survive depended on continuity.
Shocked by the decision, the daughter, who is not a UN staff or a UN expert, sought management evaluation on 27 June and immediately filed an application for suspension of action. Her position was straightforward: withdrawing life-preserving medical care with almost no notice would have direct consequences that could not be reversed. She supported her application with medical reports, Cigna’s own written confirmation that the care constituted “medical services,” and clinical certificates describing the risks of interruption.
When the UN Dispute Tribunal examined the file, the judge noted that the decision “changed the status quo,” that the Organisation had provided no evidence supporting the reclassification, and that the Administration had not disclosed the independent medical report it claimed to rely upon. The daughter, in contrast, had substantiated every aspect of her claim.
The Tribunal appeared ready to assess the lawfulness of the decision. And at that point, the Organisation altered its position.
Before the Tribunal could rule on the suspension, the Administration granted a temporary extension of the 24/7 medical care until 30 September 2025. With the implementation postponed, the application became moot, and the Tribunal dismissed it.
It is important to note that from the very beginning, the Administration did not limit itself to defending the medical reclassification. It immediately resorted to a stunningly aggressive tactic, attempting to block the daughter’s request on receivability grounds and arguing that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction even to hear the suspension application. In other words, instead of addressing the substance, the UN attempted to stop the case from being heard at all. Thisastonishing procedural maneuverillustrates the Organisation’s reflex: when confronted with a life-or-death situation affecting a former staff member, its first instinct was to litigate the technicalities of admissibility rather than engage with the urgent medical emergency at hand.
This sequence repeated itself three months later.
As the September deadline approached, the daughter filed a second suspension application on 16 September. The Administration replied by informing the Tribunal that coverage would again be extended, this time until 31 December 2025. The management evaluation was closed one day after the application was filed, rendering the matter no longer receivable.
Once again, the Tribunal could not examine the substance.
In both orders, Judge Sun implicitly warned what was happening:
The Administration was deliberately prolonging the review, granting just-enough extensions to “avoid judicial scrutiny” (words used by the Applicant, and clearly not contradicted by the Tribunal), while forcing the daughter to re-litigate every 90 days to prevent the Organization from withdrawing life-sustaining care.
The judge went so far as to remind the Administration of its “duty of care” and to urge it to stop this cycle of threats, delays, and last-minute extensions. That is as close as the Tribunal comes to reprimand outside a judgment on the merits. The judge declined to rule on the merits. But he added something rarely said in these orders. He formally reminded the UN of its duty of care:
“In view of the seriousness of the matter, the Tribunal highlights the Administration’s duty of care towards its staff members, and strongly encourages it to expedite the resolution… to avoid the need for another application.” (Order No. 110, para. 18)
These orders are important because they expose a system where:
Duty of care becomes optional.
Medical vulnerability becomes a legal opportunity: a chance to reduce costs under the cover of “interpretation.”
Staff are protected only as long as they can fight.
Family members become de facto litigants, expected to know insurance law, administrative law, medical guidelines, and UN internal procedures at the very moment their lives are collapsing.
A procedural pattern where the UN uses short-term extensions as a shield, avoiding having to justify its actions before a judge.
The legality of the core decision remains unexamined because each extension resets the clock.
A judicial record quietly flags the implications, without venturing beyond the limits of the suspension-of-action mechanism.
The case illustrates how administrative decisions can shift the ground beneath individuals who are least able to absorb disruption, and how the internal justice framework, when confined to procedural thresholds, can be prevented from addressing the underlying issue.
A former staff member with catastrophic injuries should not be engaged in legal proceedings directly or through her daughter, just to preserve life-sustaining care. The language of the Orders shows a judge repeatedly constrained by the procedural rules of suspension applications, unable to reach the core issue because the Organisation shifts position just in time.
The facts speak clearly: confronted with a former staff member whose survival depends on uninterrupted medical care, the UN showed remarkable speed and determination in defending its administrative position, yet an equally remarkable unwillingness to honour the core obligation it owes its personnel: a duty of care that, in this case, was treated as expendable.
On 23 October, UN Staff 4 Gaza issued a press release announcing the launch of a memorial project for UN personnel killed by Israel in Gaza. The group is led by former senior UN staff, many of whom I have worked with.
Before getting into what is fundamentally wrong, on multiple levels, with this action and with this press release, I want to acknowledge what is positive. It is the first time a public statement explicitly uses the word killed and names the perpetrator, Israel :
“More than 370 members of UN personnel have been confirmed killed by the Israel Defense Forces since October 2023.”
Most others still refer to these colleagues as “dead,” carefully omitting the party responsible. That UN Staff 4 Gaza names Israel directly is due in large part to the fact that its leaders are former senior UN officials; otherwise, they would have been dismissed immediately by the organization. Still, they deserve credit for calling things by their name. The release also correctly states that the majority of those killed were UNRWA staff, not general “UN staff,” a distinction long overdue.
It is precisely because its leaders are former UN staff that they have space for more forceful action and bolder language, unless this entire exercise is simply a PR moment, a gateway to a few interviews on Al Jazeera or other international media, followed by silence.
A memorial has symbolic value, but it falls painfully short of what UNRWA staff killed in Gaza actually deserved. Given the positions and titles these former officials once held, they can do far more. If they genuinely seek to honour UNRWA staff, they can begin by addressing the Secretary-General and the Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini, and demand to know why the families of the UNRWA staff killed in Gaza continue to be denied their entitlements.
I doubt the staff who were killed were wondering about a future memorial. Their concerns were very different: If I die, who will take care of my children? Who will support my spouse, my parents? Who will ensure my children have access to education, medicine, stability? That they have enough funds if they choose to escape this hell voluntarily?
No one lies awake at night hoping that their children will one day visit a monument with their name etched on it. They hope their children will survive and be protected.
Many will interpret this as diminishing the efforts of UN Staff 4 Gaza. It is not. I respect most of them, and I know several personally who carry the Palestinian cause with sincerity. This is precisely why their voices, reputations, and platforms matter, and why they should be used for something that will actually serve the families of the UNRWA staff killed by Israel in Gaza, many of whom were killed in the line of service.
There is another point that must be said plainly. If those killed had been American, British, German, Canadian, take your pick, there would already be dozens of committees, campaigns, and advocacy groups demanding justice, pushing relentlessly for reparations, lobbying governments, flooding the media. But when the victims are Palestinian, the system stops at pity. It never reaches action.
This is what a colonial hierarchy looks like: grief is permitted, justice is not.
A brief reminder: the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini, gave the bereaved families USD 300 each instead of the USD 126,000 to which they are entitled. And no, the reason is not that UNRWA has a “different set of rules.” The management deliberately excluded the Gaza staff from the annual insurance coverage.
Another reminder: to this day, the Commissioner-General has not released the Provident Fund savings of the deceased staff. These savings belong to the staff and their families, not to the Agency. Nothing prevents UNRWA from releasing these funds or, at minimum, continuing to pay their salaries against their accumulated savings until compensation is properly processed.
If the goal is truly to honour the UNRWA staff killed by Israel in Gaza, then start with real work.
A memorial is beautiful, but beauty does not feed children, does not pay school fees, does not treat trauma, does not bring stability. What will come next is predictable: the unveiling, the photo ops for senior officials, and another round of speeches, while the families still search for someone willing to raise their case and push it forward.
A memorial may stand in stone, but justice must stand in action. Right now, the former is moving ahead, and the latter is nowhere in sight.
A Critical Legal Analysis of UNRWA’s Commissioner-General’s Termination of Nine Gaza Staff Members
I. Introduction
When the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was established in 1949, its founding resolution (302 [IV]) mandated an independent humanitarian function, insulated from political interference. The Commissioner-General, as the agency’s head, is bound by the same Charter obligations as all senior UN officials: to act exclusively in the interest of the United Nations, free from instructions from any government.
Yet in January 2024, that principle was dramatically breached.
Following unverified Israeli allegations that several UNRWA Gaza staff members participated in the 7 October 2023 attacks, Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini swiftly terminated nine Palestinian UNRWA staff without any evidence, due process, or hearings.
By his own admission, the Commissioner-General fired the staff “in close consultation with the Secretary-General” and “in the interest of the Agency,” even as Israel provided no substantiating proof. His actions not only violated fundamental due-process rights under UNRWA’s internal regulatory framework but also handed Israel the rhetorical weapon it had long sought: official confirmation that UNRWA employed “Hamas operatives.” This rhetoric is, of course, devoid of any truth.
Within days, Israeli authorities restricted Lazzarini’s access to Gaza, and later shuttered the Agency’s East Jerusalem office. In effect, the Commissioner-General’s legally indefensible act furnished the pretext for UNRWA’s political dismantling.
This article examines, from a purely legal perspective, how these decisions contravened the UN’s internal justice principles, undermined the agency’s independence, and blurred the boundary between humanitarian neutrality and political appeasement.
II. The Legal Framework
1. Institutional Autonomy under the UN Charter
Article 100 of the UN Charter stipulates that international civil servants “shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.” The corresponding Staff Regulation 1.1 reinforces this duty of independence. The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, although appointed by the Secretary-General, exercises authority delegated by the General Assembly, not by Member States.
The Charter therefore precludes any de facto subordination of UNRWA to a State’s political or security agenda. The Commissioner-General’s legal allegiance is to the UN system’s administrative law and to the staff regulations that safeguard fairness, neutrality, and the rule of law within the Organization, notably Article 100 of the UN Charter and Staff Regulation 1.1(a), which explicitly prohibit any UN official from seeking or receiving instructions from a government.
2. Due Process under the UNRWA Staff Rules
UNRWA’s Staff Regulations and Rules mirror the UN Secretariat’s internal justice framework, anchored in:
Presumption of innocence: no disciplinary measure can be imposed without clear, credible evidence.
Right to be heard: staff must be informed of charges and allowed to respond before sanctions are imposed. The UNRWA nine staff did not receive any charge letters setting out the allegations, and they were not afforded any opportunity to respond before being terminated.
Standard of proof: allegations must be established on the “balance of probabilities” at a minimum, or “beyond a reasonable doubt” for grave misconduct. In the case at hand, since the sanction concerned staff termination (serious misconduct), the correct threshold to be applied was beyond a reasonable doubt. No standard of proof was applied to the nine staff who were terminated.
Proportionality and reasoned decision: sanctions must correspond to proven misconduct, supported by a reasoned administrative decision.
Judicial oversight: staff possess the right to appeal before the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and, subsequently, the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT).
These guarantees embody the UN’s internal rule of law. They are not optional, even in crises.
3. Role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
OIOS functions as the UN’s independent investigative arm. Its mandate is fact-finding, not adjudication. The final decision to impose discipline rests with the head of entity, here, the Commissioner-General, who must base that decision on verified, corroborated evidence. OIOS does not pronounce guilt; it simply reports findings.
Therefore, when OIOS states that “evidence, if authenticated and corroborated, could indicate involvement,” this signals that proof is incomplete, not that wrongdoing is established. Acting upon such an inconclusive report constitutes a fundamental procedural error.
III. Factual Chronology
1. January 2024: The Allegations
In January 2024, Israeli authorities transmitted to UNRWA a set of allegations claiming that 12 staff members in Gaza were involved in the 7 October attacks. No supporting evidence was shared. Nevertheless, Commissioner-General Lazzarini, in consultation with the Secretary-General, immediately terminated the contracts of the implicated staff “in the interest of the Agency.”
By doing so, he pre-empted both investigation and adjudication, effectively presuming guilt. The act bypassed all procedural steps mandated by the Staff Rules; notification of charges, opportunity to respond (OTR), due process, hearing in case of termination, and proportional review.
2. March–April 2024: Expansion of the Investigation
As further unverified allegations surfaced, additional staff were placed under OIOS investigation. The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) later investigated a total of 19 UNRWA staff members after Israel provided information on an additional seven individuals in March and April 2024.
The Commissioner-General maintained the summary terminations, justifying them as necessary to protect UNRWA’s reputation and reassure donors. Yet this justification itself contradicts the raison d’être of due process: protecting institutional integrity through law, not expediency.
3. 5 August 2024: The Commissioner-General’s Statement
Upon OIOS’s completion of its review, Commissioner-General Lazzarini issued a formal statement:
“In nine other cases, the evidence obtained by OIOS was insufficient to support the staff members’ involvement… For the remaining nine cases, the evidence – if authenticated and corroborated – could indicate involvement… I have decided… these remaining nine staff members cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts… will be terminated in the interest of the Agency.”
This language exposes the legal incoherence of the decision. “Could indicate” is a hypothetical, not a factual conclusion. Terminating staff on that basis amounts to administrative arbitrariness.
Moreover, Lazzarini acknowledged that Israel had not provided evidence despite repeated requests, yet proceeded regardless. The decision therefore lacked the essential element of facta probata (evidence proven).
The dismissals triggered a cascade of political repercussions: Israel restricted the Commissioner-General’s entry to Gaza, forced closure of UNRWA’s Jerusalem field office, and intensified its campaign to defund the Agency. Ironically, Lazzarini’s decision, intended to preserve UNRWA’s credibility, supplied Israel with the official validation it had long sought: that UNRWA employed Hamas affiliates.
5. 24 and 30 October 2025: The United Nations’ Spokesperson’s Clarification on the Record
“I have a clarification to make. In the noon briefing on Friday, 24 October, responding to a question about allegations against UNRWA personnel by the Israeli authorities, I said that “there were a small number of staff members of UNRWA who were credibly linked to Hamas and we have handled that situation and fired those personnel”.
This was incorrect. The outcome of the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation into these allegations did not qualify them as credible. Instead, OIOS said that the evidence that it obtained — if authenticated and corroborated — might indicate that the staff members may have been involved. The Government of Israel, to date, has not provided additional elements to corroborate or authenticate the claims, although it has been asked to do so repeatedly. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice last week ruled that the State of Israel’s claim that UNRWA is infiltrated by Hamas was not substantiated, nor were allegations that UNRWA is not a neutral organisation.”
This clarification is decisive. It formally admits that no credible evidence existed. The nine staff members were therefore dismissed unlawfully, in violation of both internal due-process guarantees and the principle of presumption of innocence.
IV. Key Legal Issues Emerging from the Record
Absence of Evidentiary Basis The Commissioner-General’s reliance on speculative OIOS language (“if authenticated and corroborated”) fails the basic evidentiary threshold required for termination. Without authenticated proof, the decision is ultra vires, beyond his lawful authority. Further, in cases of serious misconduct where the contemplated disciplinary measure could be termination, the threshold of evidence required is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Violation of Due Process By acting before investigation and denying staff the opportunity to respond, the Commissioner-General contravened the UN’s procedural guarantees under Chapter X of the UN rules on disciplinary process, as well as Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to a fair hearing).
Subordination to a Member State’s Allegations The Commissioner-General’s actions reflected de facto compliance with Israeli political pressure, contrary to Article 100 of the Charter and Regulation 1.1 of the Staff Regulations prohibiting receipt of instructions from governments.
Public Defamation and Reputational Harm His statements, and their immediate media amplification, effectively branded UNRWA staff as terrorists. Even absent evidence, the public perception of guilt caused irreparable reputational damage to the Agency and the individuals concerned.
Institutional Accountability Vacuum Despite the subsequent UN clarification and ICJ ruling dismissing Israel’s claims, no remedial action, such as reinstatement or compensation, has been taken. The absence of corrective measures perpetuates impunity within the UN’s leadership structure.
From a legal standpoint, the only appropriate remedy would be the immediate reinstatement of the nine unlawfully dismissed staff, or at the very least, an accountability review into the Commissioner-General’s conduct to restore institutional integrity.
UNRWA Is Not Hamas.
It is a United Nations agency operating under the authority of the General Assembly, employing doctors, teachers, engineers, and social workers, all of them refugees themselves, who serve under UN rules of neutrality and oversight. The attempt to recast this humanitarian institution as a militant organization is a political Israeli fabrication, and the Commissioner-General’s unlawful dismissals gave that fiction an undeserved aura of legitimacy
Beyond the procedural irregularities, the broader consequence is reputational and structural: the very act intended to protect UNRWA from political attack became the instrument that enabled it.
The Commissioner-General’s actions have contributed to fuel the narrative of Israel about UNRWA staff linked to Hamas. Contrary to his statements, the CG failed to protect UNRWA from reputational risks. Quite the contrary, it was his acts that led to an irreparable reputational damage by linking, incorrectly and unlawfully and outside any regulatory framework, the dismissal of these staff to Hamas- a damage that may prove be very difficult to repair.
While UNDP Gaza leadership continues to communicate publicly about supporting Palestinians to return home, its own long-serving Palestinian staff who fled under active bombardment have already been informed that their contracts will be terminated by the end of the year.
@AlessandroMrakic, the UNDP Head of the Gaza office regularly highlights UNDP’s role in helping Palestinians rebuild their homes.
Jaco Cilliers states that “Gazan residents are eager to return home and rebuild their lives.”
Tom Fletcher praises UNDP-cleared roads that “give us access to people in need of aid.”
All of these messages are accompanied by a growing number of polished photo-ops and high-visibility field posts, yet none of them acknowledge the situation of UNDP Gaza’s own Palestinian personnel, who are part of the Gaza community. These staff delivered UNDP’s mandate from inside Gaza for years. They survived destruction and were forced to flee only when staying meant risking death.
Today, instead of being supported until they can safely return to Gaza and continue their service, they are being informed that their employment will be brought to an end. Many of those affected are women who worked throughout the years when Gaza was most difficult, sustaining essential programmes despite trauma, loss, and danger.
UNDP is presenting itself as a champion of Gaza’s recovery. That narrative is irreconcilable with the treatment of the personnel who built and sustained its presence on the ground. They are not temporary contractors nor external consultants. They are Palestinian professionals who delivered results long before surge deployments arrived, yet they are now being removed as other so called international surge staff fly in to take over the work they carried for years and being compensated generously for it.
Before speaking about helping the people of Gaza return home, UNDP must show responsibility toward its own staff who are the people of Gaza.
What is UNDP doing now, not in public communications, but in its employment decisions, to ensure its Palestinian staff who fled to Egypt are protected, supported, and enabled to return to their posts?
Why is UNDP Gaza punishing its own Palestinian staff for surviving a war?
UNDP leadership owes these staff clear answers and immediate action.
This week, I expose how Member States were told their contributions had funded “successful” projects for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, while the UN’s own auditors found those very projects had failed completely.
In striking contrast to the Secretary-General’s triumphant account of successfully implemented projects for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, the United Nations’ internal watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) depicts a system mired in mismanagement, absent oversight, and outcomes so hollow they verge on tragic irony.
Five projects costing over $815,000 were meant to help 628 survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse in the Central African Republic rebuild their lives. Instead, they reflected a pattern of institutional negligence disguised as implementation success.
Victims were trained in agriculture without access to land, in hairdressing without a hair dryer, and in pastry-making without ovens.
The so-called “income-generating activities” generated no income; only frustration. OIOS field visits to Alindao and Bambari found women who had dutifully completed their vocational courses yet could neither farm nor open a salon. Those trained in agriculture discovered only after graduation that they had no access to land whatsoever -no plots, no communal fields, no arrangements for leasing or use. The implementing office, astonishingly, had never verified whether participants owned or could access land before investing funds into agricultural training. In effect, they were trained for an activity that was structurally impossible.
Equally, those trained in hairdressing received “start-up kits” that omitted the most essential tools: no hair dryers, no scissors, no power supply solutions. OIOS noted that no marketanalysis or feasibility review had been conducted; the Mission never examined whether these trades were viable in the targeted areas or how victims might sustain them. The projects were conceived in spreadsheets, not in communities.
Projects were launched in locations chosen by “professional judgment”, meaning, effectively, at random. Communities with the largest number of victims, such as Dekoa and Sibut (which accounted for 21 per cent of all recorded victims), were simply left out.
The implementing partner, hand-picked without any comparative advantage analysis had no office, no staff, and no demonstrated capacity in the Central African Republic. There was no review committee, no competition, and no oversight. Trainers were recruited ad-hoc, curricula were missing for two of five courses, and attendance didn’t matter: beneficiaries who stopped attending still received completion certificates and start-up kits.
The project steering committee that should have provided governance was never established. Eleven of thirty-six weekly progress reports simply stated “Nothing to report” while projects were floundering. Even the Trust Fund team in DMSPC and the Senior Victims’ Rights Officer issued recommendations that went unheeded. The Mission failed to monitor progress, delayed disbursements, and excluded even basic provisions like transportation and food for trainees travelling several kilometres to training sites.
The result? A programme ostensibly designed to restore dignity to victims became a showcase of institutional negligence: vocational training without vocation, empowerment without power, assistance without assistance.
And yet, a triumph, according to the Secretary-General. While the OIOS audit revealed governance failure and zero impact, the Secretary-General (SG) presented an entirely different picture to the General Assembly.
In his report A/79/789 dated 17 February 2025, titled Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, the Secretary-General cited these same projects as a model of success. He proudly reported that since 2016, $5.1 million from 25 Member States had funded 21 projects, including those in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and South Sudan, with “medical care, psychological support and vocational training” provided to victims. He then called on Member States to move away from voluntary contributions and establish a “predictable and sustainable funding model.”
The Trust Fund in Support of Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, established in 2016, was created to bridge service gaps by providing vital support to complainants, victims, and children born as a result of sexual exploitation and abuse. The Fund’s governance is chaired by DMSPC, under USG Catherine Pollard, which also serves as the Implementing Office.
Its 2024 Annual Report echoed the Secretary-General’s optimism, claiming the “successful implementation and launch of 21 projects“, and emphasizing that “substantial resources are urgently needed to sustain support to victims”.
Its principal contributors listed in their own reports were:
United Kingdom – $1,117,000
United States – $620,000
Italy – $581,000
Norway – $393,000
Canada – $240,000
Japan – $200,000
Australia – $153,000
Bangladesh – $148,000
Germany – $120,000
India – $100,000
Nigeria – $100,000
Switzerland – $92,000 Total: $5,188,000
Nice figures. Glossy charts. Positive reporting.
The 2024 Annual Report reads like a success story, one slight problem, though: none of it was true.
The internal OIOS audit tells the opposite story: that the projects touted as successful in both the SG’s report and the Trust Fund’s annual report failed completely. The OIOS Report 2025/035, covering 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2025, detailed systemic failures:
No oversight or governance: No project steering committee was established to supervise implementation or review progress.
Arbitrary project locations: Sites were selected without predefined criteria, excluding major affected communities.
Copy-paste approach: The implementing partner simply replicated a vocational model used in another Mission, without any local context.
No due diligence: The partner was selected without comparative advantage analysis, and had no operational base in the country.
Missing curricula and unqualified trainers: For two of five courses, there were no curricula; the trainers’ qualifications were undocumented.
Certificates without competence: Beneficiaries who dropped out still received start-up kits and certificates.
Inflated costs and logistical chaos: Two of five MOUs omitted key delivery details, forcing MINUSCA to pay an additional $14,000 in transport.
Zero monitoring: Out of thirty-six progress reports, eleven contained no information while projects were ongoing.
Ignored recommendations: Repeated calls by oversight officers to fix basic deficiencies went unanswered.
The result, in OIOS’s own words, was that the projects “did not adequately meet the needs of victims” and failed to achieve any sustainable outcome. The contrast could not be starker:
OIOS found systemic failure, absence of oversight, and no measurable impact.
The Trust Fund celebrated completion and called for more funding.
The Secretary-General reported success, progress, and implementation.
So which version of the truth did the Fifth Committee receive?
At stake is not only the credibility of the Trust Fund, financed by Member States such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Canada, Japan, and others, but also the integrity of the United Nations reporting system itself.
How can the Secretary-General speak of successful victim-assistance projects when his own internal audit reports describe them as failed, mismanaged, and without impact?
While the Secretary-General urges Member States to establish a sustainable funding model for the Trust Fund, the very projects financed by it could not sustain a single beneficiary.
The victims trained to bake without ovens and farm without land are not merely metaphors for bureaucratic incompetence, they are living proof of an accountability system that exists only on paper. Who will then tell the Member States that the UN’s own victims are still waiting for assistance and that the only thing the Organization managed to generate was another report?
A while ago, my colleagueLucas Mendos criticized the commentators who called UN reports “useless,” pointing out how people often confuse low download numbers with low relevance. He rightly noted that most UN reports are technical in nature, written for specialized audiences, and should never be judged by clicks.
But that argument assumes one thing: that the right people actually read them.
So why aren’t Member States reading these reports?
How is it that in the same United Nations, the Secretary-General can deliver a glowing account of success while his own internal oversight body is documenting complete failure?
How can he stand before the General Assembly and ask for a more “sustainable model of funding” when the very projects he cites have collapsed under his watch?
And what are the Member States and ACABQ delegates doing about it? Why are they even paid if they cannot monitor how their own assessed contributions are spent, or whether the projects they fund are implemented as reported?
And what about the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse: the women and children the Organization vowed to protect and whose dignity it promised to restore?
What kind of dignity is this, when their names appear in reports as “beneficiaries” of projects that never worked, that left them exactly where they began?
The Trust Fund was created to support the victims of exploitation. Instead, it exposes a system that exploits even their suffering to sustain its own image.
And to the Fifth Committee delegates: read the reports. No one else will.
NB:a copy of this article will be sent to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations of each Member State listed among the contributors to the Trust Fund — so they may see how their funding was used, and what their reports did not say.
On 21 September 2025, one day before the opening of the General Assembly marking the 80th Anniversary of the United Nations, the Secretary-General sent a broadcast to all UN Secretariat staff in which he threatened disciplinary action against staff who express personal views, whether in public statements, private fora, or on social media, if those views are deemed inconsistent with the Organization’s official position.
The broadcast, titled “Guidance on Personal Communications – Reminder”, reiterates staff duties under Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the UN Ethics Office’s 2025 Guidance on Political Activities. It cautions staff to exercise restraint in their personal communications, including on private social media, reminding them that any expression, whether through posts, likes, or shares, must not conflict with the Organization’s interests or adversely reflect on their status as international civil servants. Crucially, it directs staff to ensure their communications on current crises and political matters are “consistent with the position of the Organization and the statements of the Secretary-General.” The warning is clear: non-compliance may trigger disciplinary proceedings, leading to sanctions
The SG’s message in the broadcast was unambiguous:
“Failure to do so can result in the initiation of a disciplinary process, which may result in disciplinary sanctions being imposed.”
This comes as no surprise, as the Secretary-General bends yet again to Israeli and U.S. pressure to muzzle the voices of UN staff. This manufactured silence projects a false image of consent, an image designed to shield Israel from the reality of staff dissent.
Over the past weeks, many staff have confided in me that they are retreating into silence, not out of conviction, but out of fear. Fear of losing their jobs, their salaries, their stability. I understand this deeply: they have families to sustain, obligations they cannot abandon, and many are already serving in conflict zones, enduring hardship and danger as part of their daily reality
What is new, however, is the extent to which the United Nations is willing to bend to external pressure, prepared to silence and even dismiss its own staff in order to appease two Member States, one of which is openly and actively committing a genocide and boasting of it at the podium of the General Assembly.
In 1994, during the genocide in Rwanda, there was no social media, and staff openly debated opposing views. Neutrality as a principle of international civil service already existed, but there was no talk of staff being disciplined for expressing opinions or engaging in such debates. This rigid and punitive interpretation has only been aggressively imposed in the past decade, mainly under pressure from Israel and the US.
Neutrality as a principle of international civil service already existed, but there was no notion of staff discipline being invoked against those who spoke their mind. That rigid and punitive interpretation of neutrality is a more recent phenomenon one that, over the past decade, has been aggressively driven by Israel and its donors.
In my twenty years of service across the UN system, deployed around the globe and responsible for enforcing compliance with the Code of Conduct, I had never encountered neutrality being used in this way. Not once did it become an issue with staff until I joined UNRWA. It was there that neutrality began to be systematically weaponized, not as a principle of balance, but as a tool to silence and punish dissent
It began with UNRWA, where students were forbidden from drawing maps of Palestine or their homeland under the pretext of neutrality, with U.S. donors threatening to cut funds unless such drawings were erased from UNRWA school halls. From there, the campaign escalated into systematic monitoring of UNRWA staff social media accounts, with weekly reports sent to management demanding disciplinary action. Many staff were dismissed as a result. And today, that same model is being extended to UN Headquarters staff in Geneva, New York, and across the system.
What began as pressure on one Agency has now become institutionalized across the entire United Nations system. This latest broadcast to all Secretariat staff is nothing more than the UN-wide extension of that same playbook: the silencing, disciplining, and dismissal of staff under the banner of “neutrality.”
So, under this broadcast, if a staff member states that Israel is killing thousands in Gaza, starving millions, or violating international humanitarian law, they risk being accused of breaching neutrality and subjected to disciplinary action even dismissal.
And yet, let us pause here and recall the Secretary-General’s own words. The SG is not only a political figure. He is also the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations, and from that very position, he has spoken those exact words at the podium of the General Assembly.
On 22 September, in his remarks to the General Assembly marking the 80th Anniversary of the UN, he declared:
“As we meet, civilians are targeted, and international law trampled in Gaza.”
And on the same day, at the High-level International Conference on Palestine, he went further and said :
“….nothing can justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people or any form of ethnic cleansing.
The systematic decimation of Gaza.
The starvation of the population.
The killing of tens of thousands of civilians, most of them women and children, and hundreds of our own humanitarians.
Nothing can also excuse developments in the West Bank that pose an existential threat to a Two-State solution.
The relentless expansion of settlements.
The creeping threat of annexation.
The intensification of settler violence.
All of it must stop.
The situation is morally, legally and politically intolerable.”
Scathing remarks; brave even. So why is the Secretary-General allowed to voice what his conscience compels him to say to remain sane, while staff are forbidden from saying the very same words, under threat of dismissal?
The answer is straightforward: because the vast majority of UN staff oppose this genocide. If their voices were heard, public opinion would turn even more decisively against Israel. Proof of that is already visible in the General Assembly, where the mass walkouts during the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech spoke louder than any resolution.
One thing is certain: this is an extremely dangerous trend. The UN is now actively muzzling the voices of its own staff. By silencing its own staff, the United Nations entrenches complicity at its core.
Here is the catch: this broadcast, titled ‘Guidance on Personal Communications – Reminder’ (full text above), explicitly instructs staff that any personal communications, even on private social media, must align with the official position of the Organization. That ‘position,’ of course, is articulated by the Secretary-General himself, and his own words on 22 September leave no ambiguity about what that position is.
This is the contradiction in plain sight: staff are being threatened with dismissal unless they align their views with the Secretary-General’s official position, yet when they do exactly that, they are still silenced.
Why can the Secretary-General, as Chief Administrative Officer, speak publicly and denounce ethnic cleansing, starvation, and the trampling of international law, yet staff who echo his very words are punished, investigated, or even dismissed?
This contradiction institutionalizes censorship at the very heart of the United Nations and signals a dangerous erosion of the independence of its international civil service.
If the Secretary-General may speak truth to power, why are staff denied that same right?
For months, UNRWA staff, mostly Palestinian teachers, mostly women, have been unlawfully deprived of their salaries after having fled the brutal genocide in Gaza.
But today, after we obtained and verified the UNDSS communiqué, we publish proof that the United Nations itself encouraged UN Palestinian staff to leave Gaza to a third country.
On 12 October 2023, the USG UNDSS (Department of Safety and Security) issued a binding UN communique to all UN staff in Gaza:
“UNSMS organizations will support, to the extent feasible, locally recruited personnel, who hold relevant documentation, to travel to a third country.”
The following day, 13 October at 03:27 hrs, the Designated Official sent a message to local staff:
“All staff to move with their own transportation south of Wadi Gaza, move to friends or family if you can or continue to KYTC; take supplies with you for several days.”
The UNRWA staff obeyed. They fled under bombardment, paying thousands in “coordination fees” up to USD 45,000 to cross Rafah, and continued working remotely from Egypt.
And yet, for following these very instructions, UNRWA cut off their salaries.
This is an unlawful inversion of authority: one UN hand ordering evacuation, the other punishing compliance. A betrayal of staff, a breach of duty of care, and a stain on the Organization’s legitimacy.
Read my full open letter to the Secretary-General below
I invite colleagues, journalists, and all who stand for justice to read, share, and expose this truth and demand accountability from the Commissioner-General of UNRWA.
This picture is published with the explicit consent of Nadia, the widow of Ahmad, an UNRWA staff member killed by Israel on 29 May 2025 on Al-Tina Street in Khan Younis, in front of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation parcels of death.
Ahmad was no stranger to service to Palestinian refugees. For 19 years, he worked as a psychosocial support officer in UNRWA’s Education Department, walking alongside the children of Gaza through their trauma. When the war erupted on 7 October 2023, Ahmad and Nadia were forced to flee their home more than 19 times, moving from the north to the south, governorate to governorate, under bombardment. Yet every day, Ahmad continued to report to duty. He never stopped serving.
In May 2025, while UNRWA salaries were suspended until 2 June, Ahmad went to check on the humanitarian parcels being distributed. He stopped to speak with a US army officer about the impossible conditions his people faced. Moments later, as he walked away, an Israeli sniper’s bullet pierced his chest. He was killed instantly.
His death reached Nadia not through the Agency he had served for nearly two decades, but through a photograph posted anonymously on Facebook. This is how she discovered her husband had been reduced to a martyr without a name.
Nadia is left with four children, stripped not only of a husband and father but of the family’s only income. Ahmad’s monthly salary was $1,200, their livelihood. When she reported her husband’s death to UNRWA management and sought the compensation to which she was entitled, the Agency offered no support; instead, it immediately cut off Ahmed’s salary, thereby exacerbating the family’s already meager financial situation and deepening her suffering and that of her children. And UNRWA’s position to her was blunt: no family of a staff member killed since 7 October 2023 has received compensation.
Under the UN Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP), every UN staff member killed in an act of war is entitled to compensation, which for an UNRWA national staff is approximately $123,000. This is not discretionary. It is a right enshrined in the UN rules. Every UN organization pays annual premiums to enroll its international and national staff in this policy.
Every UN organization, except UNRWA for its Palestinian staff.
UNRWA International staff are covered.
UNRWA Palestinian staff are Not.
This is systemic discrimination, sustained knowingly and purposefully by the Commissioner-General. It is an unlawful exclusion of more than 550 Palestinian families from the protections guaranteed by the UN Charter itself.
In addition, Ahmad’s Provident Fund savings, likely between $40,000 and $60,000 remain frozen. These funds belong to him and to his family. Nothing prevents the Agency from releasing them or, at the very least, continuing to pay his salary against the balance of his own savings until proper compensation is processed. This is a basic fiduciary obligation.
The Commissioner-General, Lazzarini, holds the authority to establish exceptional rules in response to exceptional circumstances. There is no circumstance more exceptional than Palestine today, only yesterday formally acknowledged by the United Nations as a genocide. Yet this authority has not been exercised to protect the very staff who continue to serve under fire, or the families of those who have been killed.
Instead, Lazzarini chose to invoke “exceptional rules” to suspend the salaries of more than 500 Palestinian teachers who fled Gaza to Egypt in a desperate attempt to survive. He acted swiftly when it came to punishment, but stands idle when faced with the obligation to ensure dignity and justice for the families of the slain hiding behind vile bureaucratic walls. This selective application of authority reveals not only negligence but a grave breach of duty.
This is now a matter of the Commissioner-General Lazzarini’s willful breach of duty and abdication of his duty of care toward Palestinian staff, committed openly and brazenly in the midst of a genocide. Why is the Commissioner-General allowed to inflict more suffering on Palestinian staff than Israel itself?
Nadia gave me this picture to show the world what UNRWA will not say: Israel killed her husband, and the Organization he served abandoned her and her children to starve, under Lazzarini’s watch, while the Secretary-General looks away.
To speak for Nadia is to speak for the 550 families of UNRWA staff killed by Israel and betrayed by the Organization they served.
Open Letter To the Executive Directors of UN Women, UNICEF, and UNFPA
Nadine Kaddoura
Founder @CERTIORARIS and former UN Senior Staff
15 September 2025
To: Ms. Sima Bahous, Secretary-General of the United Nations
cc:
Deputy Secretary-General, Ms. Amina J. Mohammed
Ms. Catherine Russell, Executive Director, UNICEF
Ms. Diene Keita, Executive Director of UNFPA
Ms. Reem Alsalem UN Special Rapporteur, Violence Against Women and Girls
I am writing to alert you that 480 UNRWA women teachers have been unlawfully placed on special leave without pay after having fled under the bombs from Gaza to a safe haven outside the occupied palestinian territories, on their own.
In total, 584 staff have been affected, of which 480 are women.
480 women.
That means more than four out of every five staff punished by this measure are women. A shocking 82 per cent.
This level of disproportionate harm to women constitutes a glaring violation of women’s rights and requires immediate corrective measures and urgent redress, consistent with the mandates of your offices.
These women fled Gaza alone, with no support, under conditions of extreme hardship. Many had lost family members, seen their homes destroyed, and were left without access to basic healthcare or food to care for their children or themselves. Neither UNRWA nor any other agency offered them safe shelter, not even a tent.
Not even a tent.
With no protection, they had no choice but to seek safety and urgent medical care on their own.
They continued to work remotely from Egypt, fulfilling their duties despite everything. Yet the Commissioner-General decided unlawfully to place them on exceptional leave without pay for a full year.
The testimonies of these UNRWA women are unbearable. Some are now forced to clean homes in Egypt just to provide food to their children. Women in conflict and displacement, when stripped of income and social protection, face heightened risks of violence, including sexual violence and exploitation. Displacement, combined with economic insecurity, deepens their vulnerability. Women who cannot provide for their children are more easily coerced, more likely to be subjected to abuse in exchange for the bare necessities of survival. Refugee women denied access to jobs or financial services are left even more exposed, more susceptible to violence, abuse, and exploitation. Economic empowerment in such contexts is not simply about income. It is a tool of protection. The provision of salaries, support, and protection services is what now stands between these women and exploitation.
No explanation can soften what you will read next. I leave you to judge for yourself, in their own voices, below.
Testimony 1 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher
“After ten years of IVF, I finally had a baby but he was a child with special needs. When the bombing started, I ran with him to Egypt to keep him alive. My husband stayed behind to care for his parents. A few days later, they were all killed, my husband and his parents. Now it is just me and my baby. UNRWA cut my salary, and I cannot pay for kindergarten or for the care my child with special needs requires. I don’t know how I am supposed to manage.”
Testimony 2 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher
“My daughter was badly injured and had to go through more than seventeen operations. I brought her out of Gaza on a medical care option so she could be treated, but I had to leave my other children behind. They depend only on me and on my salary. Instead of helping me in this situation, UNRWA put me on unpaid leave for a whole year even though I kept working remotely with full dedication while caring for my daughter in hospital. How am I supposed to feed my other children in Gaza if I don’t even have my salary of 1,000 USD? What should I do? Tell me! What should I do?”
Testimony 3 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher
“I fled Gaza with my three children, running from the hell we were living through. When UNRWA cut my salary, I had no choice but to leave my children at home alone while I went to clean apartments for strangers just to bring them something to eat. How can I call this survival? What kind of life is this for me and for my children? Where is my dignity?”
Testimony 4 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher
“I left Gaza with my husband so he could receive cancer treatment. Six weeks later, he died. Now my children are still in Gaza, with no one to provide for them. They are living in tents, searching for food, suffering from malnutrition, and needing urgent care. And I have no salary to provide for them. Tell me, how am I supposed to keep them alive from here?”
In addition to the inherent right to protection and dignity, this decision directly contravenes United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/290 (2010) on the right to education in emergencies. That resolution, grounded in international human rights and humanitarian law, explicitly recognizes education as lifesaving and fundamental during armed conflict. It affirms that education plays a critical role in preventing abuses against affected populations, including sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking, and the worst forms of child labour.
Further, the Incheon Declaration (2015), endorsed by UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, UN Women, and UNFPA, established the global Education 2030 Agenda. Paragraph 25 clearly affirms that “education in emergency contexts is immediately protective, providing life-saving knowledge and skills and psychosocial support to those affected by crisis.”It also stresses that education equips children, youth, and adults with the tools to withstand and prevent disaster, conflict, and disease.
Women who once taught children in Gaza now find themselves silenced, cut off from their salaries, and forced into conditions of exploitation simply to feed their families.
I leave you with the image of Ritaj, a young Gazan student, sitting among the rubble with her calculator and notebooks. She went out of her building to find connection and to sit for her exams, despite being displaced and having lost her home. Even in destruction, she carried with her the tools of learning, the last anchor she had.
This picture, besides being a testament to this girl’s courageous determination, is also the clearest proof that education in emergencies is life-saving, it is protective, and it is dignity itself. To strip women teachers of their salaries in this context is to sever the very lifeline that allows children like Ritaj to hold on to hope.
I ask you, as women leading entities with clear mandates to protect women and safeguard their rights, including the right to education and the rights of children, to take immediate corrective action.
Under your mandates, you hold a direct responsibility to these Gazan women and their children. Failure to intervene and redress this situation would constitute not only a breach of that responsibility but also a denial of the protection your offices are obliged to uphold.
I urge you to exert all necessary pressure to rescind this unlawful decision and to restore the rights and entitlements of the UNRWA women affected by this unlawful decision.
In the past year, UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini has made himself directly complicit in stripping Palestinian staff of their rights, protection, and dignity.
Here is the record:
🔴 1. At the start of the Gaza war, he ordered international staff to evacuate UNRWA facilities and abandoned the Palestinian staff with nothing but a two-word text: “Good luck.” That message exists. We have the proof.
🔴 2. UN rules guarantee national staff relocation within the duty station and 30 days of DSA. In Gaza, the safe haven was Rafah. He excluded them, denying protection. As a result, hundreds were killed.
🔴 3. UN rules entitle all staff to death/disability compensation in acts of war. Each family should have received ~$123,000. Lazzarini willingly excluded Palestinian staff while fully covering internationals. He then handed grieving families $300. Not just a deliberate act of degradation, but a total disregard for Palestinian staff rights under UN rules.
🔴 4. Over 550 UNRWA staff have been killed by Israel. Their provident fund savings (between $50k–$100k each) remain blocked by UNRWA. Lazzarini hides behind “legal impediments” while surviving families barely struggle to survive.
🔴 5. Lazzarini instructed the suspension of salaries of 650 education staff who fled Gaza after their homes were bombed and their families slaughtered. This means over 5,000 dependents cut off from their only lifeline.
A few days ago, after Israel ordered the displacement of over one million Palestinians from Gaza City, the UN Spokesperson, reporting on OCHA’s tracking admitted they had monitored the movement of about 10,000 people to the south.
The Spokesperson also said that for the vast majority, leaving was “simply not possible,” with transportation costs exceeding $1,000. Lazzarini does not get to decide the fate of UNRWA national staff. This money is not his. It is the hard-earned savings of staff who gave more than 20 years of their lives to the Agency. He has no right to hold his own staff hostage when those funds could mean the difference between staying trapped under the killing machine or escaping with their children and saving their lives.
And yes, many will come and attack, thinking that the Agency is bankrupt. That is simply not true, and they do not have the right information and that is part of the problem. Lazzarini and the Western-led management continue to hide the truth, and people believe what they say. This money sits in the savings of the Agency, built over more than 20 years, and it does not depend on donor or external funding. These are the life savings of Palestinian staff who gave decades of their lives in service.
No Commissioner-General has the right to steal them.
The problem is not UNRWA as an organization. The problem is a Western-led senior management, imposed and sustained through external political influence, that has become nothing less than an accomplice to Israel, advancing its strategy to dismantle the Agency and to strip Palestinian staff of their rights under international law.
The remedy is clear: UNRWA must be decolonized. Its governance must be returned to those it was created to serve, free from foreign control and political manipulation. Anything less perpetuates illegality, denies staff their rights, and turns the Agency into an instrument of oppression rather than protection. Decolonization is not optional. It is the only lawful path forward.
And one must ask: why are Arab senior officials not leading this Agency, while it remains in the hands of Western-led, U.S.-backed appointees?
What legitimacy can an Agency claim when its leadership is imposed from outside, serving foreign agendas instead of its own staff and the people of Palestine?
Answer that, before you speak of neutrality or reform. And to Lazzarini: stop evading your responsibilities. Do what is right, for once, by the very staff whose rights you have trampled.
Urgent Call for Action – Unlawful Withholding of Salaries from 625 UNRWA Palestinian Staff
“I am one of your UNRWA staff. I fled Gaza nine months pregnant, starving, my body breaking down from malnutrition and high blood pressure. Doctors warned me I might be cut open without anesthesia. I begged for help, sent my medical reports, and escaped in maternity clothes. The border closed behind me.
I borrowed money I did not have, just to pay the bribes they call coordination fees. I dragged my five children with me and left my husband behind. After the invasion of Rafah, he vanished. No voice, no trace. I am now alone with five children, the eldest only nine, the youngest barely one year old. Six months without pay. Six months begging, borrowing, breaking down. The bank wants its money. My children want their father. They want food. And I have nothing left to give. So tell me, what exactly are you waiting for? For me to burn myself alive in front of the world so you can finally see that your silence is sentencing me and my children to death?” — Testimony by Ola Ziada, English Second Language Teacher at UNRWA
“My house was destroyed. My mother, my wife, my four children all martyred. I alone was left breathing. I crawled from the north of Gaza to the south, running from death until I finally escaped the Strip. And what was my reward for surviving? My salary was cut. My lifeline taken. Tell me: what kind of justice is this? What kind of employer buries the dead in silence and punishes the survivor for daring to breathe?” — Testimony of an UNRWA Teacher in Gaza
“I gave UNRWA twenty years of my life as a teacher. And when I fled under the bombs with nothing, UNRWA decided to cut my salary.” — Testimony of an UNRWA Teacher in Gaza
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Six months ago, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Mr. Philippe Lazzarini, chose to use his so-called “discretionary power” to punish 625 Palestinian staff members in the education sector. Six hundred and twenty-five teachers and educators, people who escaped from the Israeli war machine in Gaza, who fled after their homes were flattened, who buried their families, were cut off from their salaries as if their survival itself were a crime.
The 625 UNRWA staff are not faceless employees.
TheyAreTeachers: men and women who spent their lives in classrooms, carrying books and chalk, not weapons. They shaped entire generations of Palestinian refugees. If there is anything sacred in this world, it is the legacy of teaching. And yet, their reward for decades of service has been punishment and outright abandonment.
The former Commissioner-General, Pierre Krahenbühl, guided by his lawyers, invented Rule 105.3: an illegal clause that gave him the power to throw staff onto the street without pay whenever he wished. He created it but never dared to use it.
But Mr. Lazzarini did. He pulled it out of the drawer and wielded it as a weapon. With a single stroke, he turned a dormant clause into a blunt instrument of collective punishment against the very people who kept this agency alive.
Mr. Lazzarini already showed his true face when he ordered the evacuation of international staff at the outbreak of war, abandoning Palestinian staff to bombs, bullets, and starvation, without protection, without directives, without support. And when some of those staff somehow crawled out of Gaza alive, the Commissioner-General decided to impose on them further punishment by cutting their salaries outright, leaving them, their babies, their mothers, and their families to fend for themselves, while he continues to collect his lavish salary, presiding over their suffering with cold indifference.
We have not forgotten and we will not stop demanding accountability for Mr. Lazzarini’s refusal to pay death compensation under the Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP) for more than 550 UNRWA staff killed by Israel. That crime will not be buried, and we will return to it in a separate letter. In the meantime, the families of UNRWA’s martyred staff remain abandoned. Each of them has Provident Fund savings ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 of their own money yet not a single dollar has been released. Mr. Lazzarini hides behind invented “legal impediments” to rob the dead of their dignity and the living of their survival.
But there was apparently no “legal impediment” when he chose to dig up and weaponize Rule 105.3: a rule that trampled every humanitarian principle by depriving 625 Palestinian staff, and more than 5,000 of their family members, of their meager salaries. With one stroke of his pen, he condemned them to hunger, sickness, and despair, all while he shields himself behind empty legal jargon and continues to draw his own lavish pay.
Mr. Lazzarini goes from one TV news channel to another, preaching about Israel blocking aid while he himself is blocking and inflicting more suffering on his own staff. What moral authority does UNRWA claim when it starves its own staff, its teachers, of the most basic right to a salary?
While Gaza’s people are subjected to forced famine and genocide, Mr. Lazzarini adds to their torment, driving sickness and death into the lives of the very staff who carried this agency for decades.
Mr. Secretary-General,
You cannot wash your hands of this. The bloodless cruelty of this policy flows upwards, and your silence makes you complicit.
There is no excuse that justifies withholding the salaries of 625 Palestinian staff. You have the power, today, to reverse this unlawful and unjust decision.
Every day you allow this to continue, you stand shoulder to shoulder with Lazzarini in the deliberate starvation and humiliation of Palestinian teachers and their families. You are complicit in their suffering and you will bear responsibility for whatever further consequences befall them.
All titles, salaries, and privileges can be stripped away. What cannot be taken from you is the moral courage to act when it matters most, unless you choose not to use it.
“You only truly possess that which you cannot lose in a shipwreck.” — Abu Hamed al-Ghazali
On 22 September, the General Assembly will resume the High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution.
For those who missed the first round back in July: this conference was mandated by Member States through two GA resolutions. France and Saudi Arabia were named co-chairs, and Member States actually seemed serious about producing an “action-oriented outcome document” to finally chart an irreversible path toward peace. For a brief moment, there was even a glimmer of hope. But Washington was never going to let that stand.
They wasted no time unleashing a full-blown counterattack, trying to sink the entire effort before it could even leave the dock accusing the UN, and by extension many of their own Western European allies, of staging nothing more than a publicity stunt. Washington somehow managed to insult both its enemies and its closest allies in one breath. Their line couldn’t have been clearer:
“The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace. Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance.”
And these so-called “real-world efforts”? In practice, they amounted to handing Hamas a fake negotiation paper while, at the same time, green-lighting if not outright ordering Israel to bomb Qatar, the very state hosting mediation talks.
In Washington’s lexicon, this is what passes for “serious diplomacy”: classic sabotage dressed up as statecraft, deception passed off as negotiation, and the bombing of allies framed as peacemaking. A choice that says more about Washington’s contempt for peace than any statement ever could.
Meanwhile, on 29 July, a bloc of Western European allies joined by Australia, Canada, and New Zealand cycled through the usual talking points: condemn October 7, call for a ceasefire, reaffirm support for a two-State solution. But tucked at the end of their joint statement was a line that betrayed the real intent:
“Urge countries who have not done so yet to establish normal relations with Israel, and to express their willingness to enter into discussions on the regional integration of the State of Israel.”
Normal relations. Regional integration. With a state that bombs whoever it wants, whenever it wants, even Arab countries that parade themselves as allies, the same ones bending over backwards to host negotiations.
And yet their Western partners urge the world to normalize ties with Israel and, while they’re at it, to normalize being bombed and accepting life under the constant threat of imminent attacks anywhere in the world, whenever Israel decides. In essence, this is Washington asking Arab states to absorb Israeli bombs, live under the threat of more, and still line up to shake the hand that strikes them.
But Washington left the best for last.
Just days ago, as the General Assembly opened and announced the resumption of the conference on 22 September, the U.S. representative said she was “surprised and dismayed” by the process, once again denouncing the conference as “an ill-timed publicity stunt” that would “prolong the war and undermine efforts to achieve peace” but assuring the world that Washington would continue to lead “real-world efforts to end the fighting.”
And those “real-world efforts” revealed themselves almost immediately: four days later, Israel bombed Qatar with the blessing of the U.S. This is the U.S. definition of peacemaking: preach diplomacy in New York while authorizing airstrikes on allies in the Gulf.
Europe, meanwhile, should look hard in the mirror. How long will it betray the very values it claims to stand for (rule of law, human rights, justice) while dressing up capitulation as diplomacy? Urging “normal relations” with Israel as it bombs mediators and allies is nothing less than complicity.
A conscious choice for complicity.
Arab states should take note. Qatar will not be the last. Washington’s message is crystal clear: absorb the blows, keep quiet, normalize relations, and call it peace, until it is your turn under the bombs.
At the very moment the United Nations, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), acknowledges the devastation in the occupied West Bank, UNRWA management is actively punishing its staff, and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) reinforces this by refusing to recognize the exceptional hardship they endure.
In July 2025, OHCHR warned that the Israeli “Iron Wall” operation has already forced the displacement of some 30,000 Palestinians and forms part of a broader pattern contributing to the illegal annexation of the West Bank and that there was an unprecedented “sharp surge in killings, attacks, and harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers and security forces” with Palestinian injuries in June 2025 reaching their highest monthly total in over 20 years.
The United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), however, took a shocking opposite view: that such devastation is no more than the ordinary lot of Palestinians.
“the difficult economic conditions of living in the ‘occupied Palestine territories’ do not make Mr. Hejab’s case exceptional” and that,
“difficulty in finding another job for an older staff member close to retirement in – Occupied Palestine- cannot be considered as an unusual circumstance” (paras. 65–67).
This reasoning exposes just how profoundly disconnected UNAT is from the daily realities of Palestinian life and their unimaginable suffering. While OHCHR acknowledges forced displacement, widespread killings, and economic collapse, the UN Tribunal reduces these very conditions to routine or normal challenges. It is against this backdrop that the case of Khaled Hejab must be examined. Equally disturbing is that it was not only the UN Tribunal that failed Mr. Hejab. UNRWA management itself set the stage by building untruthful and inflated allegations to justify the Palestinian senior staff’s dismissal. On the surface, the Agency proclaims its duty of care and its commitment to staff but in reality it is actively engineering the removal of Palestinian staff.
The particularities of the case make UNAT’s dismissal all the more troubling. UNRWA management dismissed Mr. Hejab on multiple baseless and distorted allegations, including an alleged conflict of interest, supposed mismanagement, and the deletion of private WhatsApp messages.
That supposed conflict of interest was nothing more than the fact that Hejab and a contractor had been neighbors for forty years in the same refugee camp and had attended the same school. UNRWA chose to treat this as compromising his integrity, as if such proximity were evidence of collusion.
But what does it even mean to be “neighbors for forty years” in the context of a Palestinian refugee camp? This is not New York, Geneva, or Paris, where people have the privilege of choosing neighborhoods, schools, jobs, or even countries of residence.
For Palestinians, the occupier decides: where they are born, where they live, where they can or cannot relocate. Entire generations are confined to the same camps, towns, or villages, with mobility dictated by checkpoints, military orders, and residency restrictions. Daily life is governed not by free choice but by military occupation.
UNRWA knows this damn well. After all, they serve all Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Agency has administered Palestinian camps for decades. It knows that in such settings, “neighbors” does not mean privilege, collusion, or concealed financial ties. It means survival in cramped, controlled, and immovable living conditions. UNRWA twisted Hejab’s own social reality into a ground for unlawful dismissal, punishing a staff member for circumstances dictated by the very structures of the Israeli occupation.
These accusations rested entirely on the findings of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). Yet both the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal observed that the Agency treated the OIOS investigation as if it were evidence itself, rather than conducting its own assessment of facts. Both UN Tribunals criticized this abdication of responsibility, underscoring that disciplinary measures must be based on established facts and not OIOS investigative conclusions that cannot withstand scrutiny.
The UNRWA Dispute Tribunal (UNRWA DT) eventually rescinded the termination, recognizing the flaws in the Agency’s decision. But when Hejab turned to the Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) seeking enhanced compensation arguing that his case was “exceptional” given the economic collapse in the occupied territories, his long unemployment, and his age close to retirement, the Tribunal dismissed his plea. It ruled that difficulty in finding another job or enduring the economic conditions of the occupied Palestinian territories did not amount to exceptional circumstances, calling them instead “routine or normal challenges.”
Such reasoning lays bare just how profoundly disconnected UNAT is from the daily realities of Palestinian life and their unimaginable suffering. While OHCHR acknowledges forced displacement, widespread killings, and economic collapse, the UN Tribunal reduces these very conditions to routine or normal challenges. I argue that the outcome reflects the cultural bias of UNAT judges, who apply Western standards of choice and mobility to a Palestinian reality defined by occupation and dispossession.
The UNAT bench applies standards shaped in and for Western contexts where mobility, career options, and social networks are taken for granted and then judges Palestinians against them.
What for a judge in New York or Geneva looks like an ‘ordinary difficulty’ is in fact the lived consequence of systemic occupation and dispossession. By erasing that difference, the Tribunal entrenches an unequal standard of justice: international staff are measured against realities of choice, while Palestinian staff are measured against conditions imposed by force.
Equally alarming was the Tribunal’s own note, in a footnote about the lack of due process, that UNRWA had asked Mr. Hejab to produce evidence while at the same time blocking his access to his UN email account, the very repository of the documents he needed to defend himself.
From my own experience, I know this is not an isolated occurrence. UNRWA and other UN entities routinely deploy this tactic under the false pretext of “data protection,” denying staff access to their records while preserving those same records for the Agency’s own use in building a case. The asymmetry of power this creates is staggering: staff are expected to fight blindfolded, while management has unfettered access to every document, communication, and confidential record. This is a deliberate erosion of any aspect of due process. Indeed, judges in previous cases have highlighted that depriving staff of access to their files tilts the balance fundamentally against them, stripping proceedings of fairness.
Not only was Mr. Hejab denied access to his own email records to mount an objective and fair defense, but management also decided it would scrutinize his private WhatsApp messages. Why should UN management have access to the personal communications of a staff member? And if such intrusion is deemed acceptable, then why are staff not given equal access to the WhatsApp messages of senior management, where real collusion and misconduct are far more likely to be revealed? The selectivity of this intrusion underscores once again how accountability flows in only one direction: downward and never toward those in positions of authority.
The case of Mr. Hejab is emblematic rather than exceptional. It illustrates a recurring structural flaw: the United Nations internal justice system applies abstract legal standards that are wholly detached from the realities of occupation, while UNRWA management manipulates those standards to eliminate staff it wishes to remove. This produces a dual regime of accountability: international staff are assessed within contexts of autonomy and mobility, whereas Palestinian staff are judged within conditions of displacement, restriction, and occupation: conditions that are then shockingly dismissed as “ordinary.” This reasoning cannot be reconciled with the principle of judicial neutrality; it constitutes the entrenchment of institutional bias, concealed beneath the veneer of legality.
UNAT judges may sit in the comfort of Geneva or New York, but they are not adjudicating cases for staff living in those contexts. They are judges of international administrative law, and many of the staff who come before them live under conditions radically different from those of their white, Western colleagues. In cases involving Palestinian staff, those conditions include occupation, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, and a daily absence of choice. To ignore this is not neutrality; it is blindness. UNAT judges must be trained to understand the cultural and political realities in which staff live and work. Without such understanding, they simply cannot adjudicate fairly. Otherwise, the system ceases to be justice at all; it becomes a bureaucracy reinforcing inequality under the cover of law.
Mr. Guy Bernard Ryder, USG for Policy and Head of the UN80 Taskforce
cc: Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Ms. Elinor Hammarskjold, USG for Office of Legal Affairs
Ms. Catherine Pollard, USG for Management
Mr. Courtenay Rattray, Chef de Cabinet
Mr. Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General
Subject: UN80 Early Separation Agreements – Legal Objections and Breach of the Principles of the Administration of Justice
Dear Mr. Ryder,
I write to register a formal objection to the UN80 Taskforce’s deployment of “early separation” agreements containing waiver clauses of sweeping breadth. Such provisions are inconsistent with binding jurisprudence, violate the Organization’s own regulatory framework, and are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the administration of justice as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
As USGs and ASGs shield themselves behind UN80 to settle personal or political scores and effect separations under the guise of budget cuts and restructuring, the Office of Human Resources has advanced further. In a calculated effort to insulate the administration from future litigation and to avoid paying higher awards before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), OHR has initiated the use of “agreed terminations” and “early separation packages,” thereby inducing staff to separate voluntarily in lieu of seeking judicial review.
While ostensibly framed as a matter of choice, in practice these agreements operate as legal entrapment. Staff are invited, under the pretext of “budgetary necessity”, to sign away vested rights, including those relating to pending complaints and ongoing litigation.
It is manifest that the present targets are not incidental redundancies but include staff engaged in active disputes, harassment claims, or proceedings seeking accountability from senior officials. I am personnnaly aware of several ongoing cases.
The construct is deliberate: frame the separation as “voluntary” while embedding a waiver clause of such sweeping breadth that it extinguishes all present and future claims, thereby foreclosing judicial recourse and insulating the Organization from liability for misconduct, however egregious.
This provision appears verbatim in the UN80 agreement:
“I agree to withdraw all claims and appeals I may have pending against the Organization, and I will make no further claims or appeals against the Organization arising from my terms of appointment or separation from service with the Organization. In addition, I acknowledge that as at the date of this agreed termination, I have no further claims against the Organization;”
Binding Jurisprudence
Just a few days ago, on 11 August 2025, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a landmark judgment, Melbiksis v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2025/053), the first of what is likely to be a series, in which UNHCR invoked a materially identical “no-sue” clause to bar receivability. The Tribunal held:
“Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s three misconduct reports are not covered by the settlement agreement, including its no-sue clause. The Tribunal notes that if a no-sue clause of a settlement agreement was to be extended to cover all future misconduct reports of a releasor (in the present case, the Applicant) concerning a releasee (UNHCR), the risk would be that any rejection of a misconduct report regarding, even very serious, disciplinary offences could subsequently be shielded entirely from judicial review.
Creating such a culture of impunity defies the fundamental principle of access to justice and would not be in the best interest of the Organization.”
A culture of impunity. This is precisely what UN80 is institutionalizing.
The Organization’s pattern of abuse of such clauses was further confirmed earlier in 2023 in Shahwan v. Commissioner-General of UNRWA (UNRWA/DT/2023/018/Corr.01). UNRWA, in particular, is well known for its systemic and recurrent misuse of unlawful non-disclosure agreements and separation terms to suppress claims and shield officials from accountability. In that case, the Tribunal ruled:
“The agreed conditions at stake (sections 12 and 13 Separation Agreement) were therefore obviously violating the standards enshrined in the Standards of Conduct.
All individuals involved in the negotiations and consequent conclusion of the conditions in question should have been aware that the agreed conditions were not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and the UN.
The Tribunal finds that there is a hierarchy among the obligations in question. The Tribunal finds that, in general, obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member.
The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal.”
Applicable Legal Principle
The principle emerging from the above jurisprudence is unequivocal: no private agreement, however artfully drafted or coercively negotiated, can lawfully displace obligations arising under the Charter of the United Nations, the Standards of Conduct, or the Organization’s internal regulatory framework. Any clause purporting to do so is ultra vires, null, and unenforceable.
Signing such an agreement constitutes an express waiver of rights guaranteed under the Charter:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … and to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained.”
In light of binding jurisprudence confirming that such waiver clauses are ultra vires, null, and unenforceable, on what legal basis does the UN80 Taskforce , under your authority is promoting their use? What justification exists for requiring staff to execute instruments that, on their face, contravene established rulings of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal?
Why should staff repose confidence in the Secretary-General, the UN80 Taskforce, or the senior officials directing this initiative, when the clauses in question have already been judicially determined to be incompatible with the Organization’s regulatory framework and the fundamental principles of the administration of justice?
Demand for Immediate Remedial Action
I call upon you, the Secretary-General, and the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs to:
• Immediately cease and desist from the use of such waiver clauses in all UN80 separation agreements, with effect from the date of this correspondence.
• Provide a formal, written undertaking that no staff member shall be required, induced, or coerced, directly or indirectly, to execute any instrument purporting to waive or extinguish rights which the United Nations Dispute Tribunal has expressly determined to be protected under the Organization’s regulatory framework.
• Initiate a comprehensive legal review of all ongoing separations being negotiated under such terms to determine their compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Standards of Conduct, and binding Tribunal jurisprudence, and to take corrective measures where non-compliance is established.
The administration of justice constitutes a binding legal obligation under the Charter and applicable jurisprudence; it is not subject to discretion or convenience. The continuation of this practice will further erode staff trust, compromise the integrity of the Organization’s internal justice system, and place the Secretary-General in breach of his duty to uphold and defend the Charter.
Respectfully,
Nadine Kaddoura Founder CERTIORARIS; and; former United Nations senior staff
As USGs and ASGs shield themselves behind UN80 to settle scores and terminate staff under the guise of budget cuts and restructuring, the United Nations Office of Human Resources (OHR) has gone a step further. In a calculated effort to insulate themselves from future appeals and avoid paying higher awards before the UNDT and UNAT, they have opened the door to “early separation packages,” enticing staff to depart voluntarily rather than litigate.
On paper, this is framed as an option. In practice, it is a legal trap.
Staff are being invited to sign away their rights, including ongoing complaints or pending cases against the Organization, under the pretext of “budgetary necessity.” OHR is well aware that while staff have only a marginal chance of prevailing before the Tribunals when separations are justified by genuine budget cuts, the current targets are not incidental redundancies: many include staff with active conflicts, harassment claims, or pending accountability proceedings against senior officials.
The construct is deliberate: frame the separation as ‘voluntary’ while embedding a waiver clause of such sweeping breadth that it extinguishes all present and future claims, thereby foreclosing judicial recourse and insulating the Organization from liability for misconduct, however egregious.
This provision is set out verbatim in the UN80 agreement:
“I agree to withdraw all claims and appeals I may have pending against the Organization, and I will make no further claims or appeals against the Organization arising from my terms of appointment or separation from service with the Organization. In addition, I acknowledge that as at the date of this agreed termination, I have no further claims against the Organization;”
Staff Beware.
just a few days ago, on 11 August 2025, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a landmark judgment,Melbiksis v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2025/053) the first of what I believe will be many, in which UNHCR relied on a similar “no-sue” clause to block receivability. The Tribunal ruled:
“Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s three misconduct reports are not covered by the settlement agreement, including its no-sue clause.
The Tribunal notes that if a no-sue clause of a settlement agreement was to be extended to cover all future misconduct reports of a releasor (in the present case, the Applicant) concerning a releasee (UNHCR), the risk would be that any rejection of a misconduct report regarding, even very serious, disciplinary offences could subsequently be shielded entirely from judicial review.
Creating such a culture of impunity defies the fundamental principle of access to justice and would not be in the best interest of the Organization.”
A Culture of Impunity.
This is precisely what UN80 is institutionalizing.
The UN’s abuse of such clauses was already exposed earlier in 2023 in Shahwan v. Commissioner-General of UNRWA(UNRWA/DT/2023/018/Corr.01). UNRWA, in particular, is well known for its systemic and recurrent misuse of unlawful non-disclosure agreements and separation terms to silence staff and extinguish legitimate claims. In this case, the Tribunal condemned the widespread reliance on such separation agreements and NDAs, ruling:
“The agreed conditions at stake (sections 12 and 13 Separation Agreement) were therefore obviously violating the standards enshrined in the Standards of Conduct.
All individuals involved in the negotiations and consequent conclusion of the conditions in question should have been aware that the agreed conditions were not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and the UN.
The Tribunal finds that there is a hierarchy among the obligations in question. The Tribunal finds that, in general, obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member.
The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal.”
The legal principle is unequivocal: no private agreement, however artfully drafted or coercively negotiated, can lawfully displace obligations derived from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct, or the Organization’s regulatory framework.
Any clause purporting to do so is null, unenforceable, and contrary to the Organization’s foundational values.
Signing this agreement means knowingly waiving the very rights the UN Charter guarantees you:
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … and to establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained.”
If the Tribunal has already determined that such clauses violate the Organization’s own regulatory framework, why would you place your trust in the Secretary-General, UN80, and his senior team, the very officials urging you to sign what the law has found they cannot enforce?
In my latest article, I explore why organizations, in this case study- UNESCO (and those in positions of authority) so often dismiss requests they deem excessive, when in fact these are routine, legitimate needs of long-serving staff, often entangled in complex personal circumstances. In doing so, the institution exposes itself to avoidable disputes and unnecessary litigation, all of which could have been averted with a more thoughtful and humane approach.
In my experience, two principles have grounded my approach to leadership and decision-making, especially in difficult environments.
First, regardless of rank or years of service, every colleague has something valuable to offer. Even those perceived as “dead weight“, a term I categorically reject, often carry within them a particular strength, insight, or passion that has simply been overlooked or underused. The key lies in identifying that niche: the area where each person is uniquely competent. I’m not speaking here about technical skills (those can be taught, acquired, replaced). I mean the subtler, often underappreciated strengths: interpersonal fluency, team adaptability, resilience in solitary roles, the need for structured routine, or a talent for chaos management. Some are neurodivergent, some need visibility, others prefer to work behind the scenes. Some need the stability of repetition; others need to be pushed into uncharted territory to thrive.
Leadership, contrary to popular management mantras, is not about “teaching” people to be different versions of yourself. That’s where things unravel. Leaders who obsess over moulding their teams in their own image fall into the predictable trap of coercive control. It begins with good intentions: coaching, “capacity-building”, a push for “standards” and ends in abuse of authority. The unspoken logic: if someone doesn’t conform to my version of performance or behaviour, I have the right to marginalize them or push them out.
Second, understanding the personal context behind performance requires more than professionalism: it requires empathy. And yes, compassion. Because work, while central to identity, does not suspend a person’s lived reality. Over time, people evolve; their private lives evolve with them. Health issues, family demands, losses, transitions: all of these bleed into the workplace whether leadership chooses to acknowledge them or not.
Too many conflicts in the workplace stem from a refusal to understand this. Leaders who lack the emotional intelligence to accommodate the realities of life outside the office will inevitably generate resistance, frustration, and yes too often litigation.
In a recent series of striking International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) judgments involving UNESCO (Nos. 5052–5056, 140th session), a long-serving P-5 staff member, after nearly three decades of service, was abruptly placed in the mobility scheme. At the time, he was undergoing a divorce and had shared custody of his minor daughter, which legally and logistically made relocation impossible. He submitted a request for deferral, citing these personal circumstances and referencing provisions in the HR Manual that allowed for such exceptions. The request was rejected without meaningful consideration.
From there, things unfolded in a way that was entirely disproportionate, but all too familiar. His post was placed in the mobility pool, and he was reassigned to Brazzaville. When that posting fell through, due to lack of host government approval, he was sent to Kingston. At no point did he refuse outright to take up the assignments. He asked for time, a short and reasonable delay to resolve matters related to his child. This was consistent with established practice and far from an exceptional request.
Instead of responding with a degree of flexibility or basic empathy, the administration treated his request as a refusal to comply and moved straight into disciplinary mode. But there was nothing to investigate: no misconduct had actually taken place. He had submitted a legitimate request to defer relocation, based on personal and legal obligations. Rather than engage with the substance of that request, management bypassed internal oversight procedures entirely. The required preliminary review by the internal oversight division never took place. No effort was made to establish whether there was any factual basis for disciplinary action, because the facts were already known and undisputed. There was no misconduct, only a difference in approach: one side asking for time, the other insisting on immediate compliance. Yet this administrative disagreement was escalated into a charge of insubordination, without even the basic procedural safeguards that a disciplinary process requires.
The senior staff member was placed on special leave and given a clear ultimatum: withdraw his internal appeals or lose his job. When he refused to capitulate, the administration followed through and terminated his appointment for alleged insubordination. The ILOAT later reviewed the case and found the entire process fundamentally flawed. The administration had bypassed its own rules, ignored the requirement for an independent investigation, and failed to meet even the minimum procedural standards for disciplinary action. The dismissal was annulled. Beyond the procedural violations, the Tribunal went further and acknowledged what the staff member had been documenting for years: a pattern of decisions and actions that amounted to institutional harassment.
Which brings us back to the central question: what could have possibly propelled the Executive Director into this kind of aggressive, adversarial stance?
Why turn a routine deferral request into a disciplinary battle? Why not pause, reflect, and acknowledge that these were genuine personal circumstances requiring a proportionate, human response?
The staff member was not challenging authority; he was simply asking for time, yet the request was recast as defiance and rapidly escalated into a full-blown disciplinary conflict.
I find it hard to believe that people begin their careers this way.
Most do not.
It is often the system itself: the absence of consequences, the unchecked authority, the culture of protecting the institution at all costs that distorts behaviour over time. The UN’s structural tolerance for impunity rewards those who bulldoze their way through dissent, override discretion, and reframe perfectly reasonable staff concerns as insubordination. Some may well have climbed the ranks by doing just that. Others may have lost their bearings along the way. But the end result is the same.
Real leadership requires the ability to see others. Many lead, but very few actually see the people they lead.
They manage outputs, they push directives, they meet deadlines, but they stop engaging with the human beings carrying the weight of the organization.
That’s where leadership breaks down. Leadership doesn’t collapse because of flawed systems or poorly written policies pr performance metrics, rather it collapses when those in charge stop recognising the people in front of them.
Which brings us to the second scenario: when leaders fail to see the value of their staff simply because they occupy a lower grade. Locked into a rigid hierarchy and their own assumptions about who is worth listening to, they operate on the belief that no one at a junior level could possibly offer insights more relevant or more useful than their own. When that mindset takes hold, the outcome is rarely constructive.
Instead of engaging, these leaders take offence. They don’t take the time to assess what is being said or consider whether it has merit. Instead, they react defensively, as if their position has been challenged. The conversation ends there. What follows is not a reasoned assessment of competing views, but a retaliatory move against someone they consider to have overstepped. Once again, what we see is a pattern of egocentric leadership where self-perception overrides sound judgment. And once again, it fails.
ILOAT Judgments No. 5057 and No. 5058 (K. v. UNESCO) perfectly capture this leadership failure.
The case concerned a long-serving G-3 level security officer at UNESCO, employed since 2002. As part of his duties, he also served as a trainer for other security staff in the use of “intermediate defense equipment,” including batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray. These certifications were initially granted following a 2016 training by an external provider and were subject to renewal every year(or every three years in the case of trainers).
Between March 2018 and October 2019, the staff member sent several emails to his supervisors, flagging the failure to organize mandatory refresher trainings, which had resulted in the expiration of the required licenses for several security officers. This created operational uncertainty within the unit, with some staff discontinuing use of the equipment, and others continuing to carry it while unsure of their legal authority to do so.
Instead of addressing the issue substantively, the administration issued the staff member a downgraded performance review, accusing him of exhibiting inappropriate behaviour and poor communication. He then filed a complaint for retaliation, which UNESCO dismissed at the preliminary review stage. The Ethics Advisor concluded that his reporting of expired weapons certifications did not constitute a protected activity under the organization’s rules.
The ILOA Tribunal disagreed, and in strong terms. It found that the staff member’s reporting of safety and compliance concerns regarding defensive equipment did fall within the scope of protected activity, even if the underlying issue resulted from deliberate internal decisions or inaction. The Tribunal emphasized that:
“The fact that the alleged breach of rules was the result of a management decision does not, in itself, exclude the possibility that reporting such a breach constitutes protected activity.”
This directly contradicted the Ethics Advisor’s logic and revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes whistleblowing or protected disclosures. The Tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the retaliation complaint was unlawful, and that the complainant had suffered moral harm as a result of the premature closure of his case without proper investigation.
The Tribunal also noted that UNESCO did not contest the factual basis of the staff member’s claims: the licenses had indeed expired, and the required trainings had not taken place. Yet, rather than engage with the substance of the concern: operational safety, legal risk, and staff uncertainty, the organization focused its efforts on discrediting the messenger.
This second case illustrates the same failure from a different angle: one rooted in hierarchy and ego. Here, the staff member wasn’t in a senior role. He was G-3 level, a security officer. But he knew his work, and he raised legitimate, operational concerns about the expiry of weapons certifications and the risks of having security personnel uncertain about their authority to use defensive gear. He flagged it calmly, through internal channels, over a sustained period. And yet, rather than acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, even the Tribunal called it “worrisome”, his supervisor took offence.
Because the feedback came from someone at a lower grade, it was treated not as input but as interference. The issue was never evaluated on its own terms and instead was buried under performance reviews and process language. His communications were suddenly labeled inappropriate, his tone scrutinized, and the focus shifted from the substance of what he was saying to the discomfort it caused his supervisor.
This is the kind of reaction that plays out when leadership becomes entangled in its own rank, title, and entitlement. And once again, it fails. What followed was a series of retaliatory actions under the cover of formal processes. The failure here was the inability to recognize that valid concerns can come from any level, and that leadership requires the ability to engage with what is being said, regardless of who says it.
In both cases, the outcome was the same: escalation, legal defeat, and reputational damage. All of it avoidable.
What’s difficult to reconcile is the gap between the values the UN and the wider humanitarian sector claim to uphold, and the behaviours that are tolerated, and at times rewarded, at senior levels. This is a non-profit environment. By definition, our work is meant to be grounded in higher principles: dignity, justice, integrity, inclusion. Unlike the private sector, where abuse and retaliation are often concealed behind NDAs and threats of blacklisting, our legitimacy depends on the consistent application of the very values we put on our posters, in mission statements, and in every new cycle of leadership and behavioral competency frameworks. But these values cannot just exist on paper or in strategy rollouts. They have to be seen in how we treat people every day.
So if you’re in a leadership role, the one question worth asking is this: do you actually see the people around you? And if you do, in what light?
Leadership begins with the ability to see the people in front of you. If you can’t do that, then what exactly are you leading?
The staff in Geneva and New York and the legal apparatus that shields them have long treated field staff as second class. And when I speak about field staff, I don’t mean only those in the Field Service category, but all staff serving in field duty stations, particularly in conflict zones as opposed to those based at headquarters.
There is a long-term, persistent, unspoken hierarchy in the United Nations, one that consistently favors those who remain anchored at headquarters over those who serve on the frontlines. And yet, the staff who choose to go where the work is urgent and consequential are the ones most often overlooked, sidelined, or denied recognition. The core of the UN’s mandate (humanitarian response, conflict resolution, capacity-building, protection) takes place far from its polished conference rooms and ceremonial declarations.
It is precisely the staff who choose to serve in these demanding, high-stakes environments who remain the most invisible. Their contributions are undervalued, their careers stunted, their entitlements often contested or denied. Take, for example, something as basic as the education grant: the speed with which it is processed and reconciled for staff based at headquarters compared to those in the field ( or worse, those handled through regional service centers) is staggering.
I chose to go to the field on my own. What I experienced there was an eye-opener: it reshaped how I think, how I decide, and how I lead.
No headquarters posting could have offered the same clarity or urgency. Nowhere else are your judgment, decisiveness, and ability to act under pressure tested as relentlessly as in the field. You don’t have the comfort of lengthy meetings or the time to craft elaborate presentations that may impress on paper but do little on the ground.
In field operations, your effectiveness is measured by what you can deliver, immediately and often with minimal support. Ingenuity thrives in environments where resources are scarce and systems are unfinished; you don’t wait for ideal conditions; you create solutions, adapt in motion, and keep the mission moving forward. This is especially true in start-up or emergency settings, where nothing is in place and yet everything is expected of you from day one.
The stakes are high: lives, missions, and credibility hang in the balance. And amid the urgency, there is a rare sense of collective focus, where staff rally around outcomes that actually matter. Nowhere else in the UN system is it possible to build capacity, deliver impact, and scale solutions as rapidly and meaningfully as in the field.
Back in 2006, then-Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown spoke candidly about the future of the Organization. He said the next generation of UN leaders would emerge not from behind desks in New York or Geneva, but from the field: from those who had seen operations up close, made hard decisions in real time, and stood accountable for outcomes, not optics.
In 2010, the Secretariat went further and codified this vision by making service in an “E” category hardship duty station a formal requirement for eligibility to apply for D-1 and above positions. For a moment, it seemed the Organization might finally begin to recalibrate the imbalance between headquarters and the field to acknowledge the depth of professional expertise and leadership forged far from the flag-lined corridors of the Palais des Nations and First Avenue.
In reality, the gap between field and headquarters has only grown wider with time. Year after year, we continue to see appointment exercises and eligibility determinations that sideline staff who served in conflict zones or under non-Secretariat entities, in favor of those who remained stationed at headquarters.
The most recent judgment, UNDT/2025/031 is as shocking as it is revealing. It shows how UN Headquarters in New York went a step further in institutionalizing discrimination against staff who served in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, by deciding that their service would not count toward eligibility, simply because UNRWA does not apply the exact same set of rules and regulations as the UN Secretariat.
Yes, you read that right.
You could serve for years under fire and bombing in Gaza, with displaced communities in Syria, or in volatile East Jerusalem and UNHQ can simply decide that none of it counts.
Your service, your hardship, your UN badge?
All of it erased the moment you ask for what you’ve rightfully earned. Why? Because UNRWA, according to DMSPC and its legal architects in New York, does not apply the exact same set of staff rules and regulations as the Secretariat.
So yes, you were in the UN system. But no, your service doesn’t accrue. Your years don’t qualify. Your experience doesn’t translate. And then you’re strangely told by UNHQ that you belong somewhere in between: not quite inside, not quite outside. And it’s because, you see, the rules are not exactly the same. That technicality, they claim, is enough to erase your years in the OPT which, in truth, were the most challenging, meaningful, and defining part of your entire UN career.
A few weeks ago, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued Judgment UNDT/2025/031, confirming how this practice is being applied in concrete terms.
The case concerned a Chief of Section working with OCHA in Geneva who had spent a significant part of her career serving in the Occupied Palestinian Territories first with UNOPS, then with UNRWA, before joining the Secretariat. Her record was emblematic of everything the UN claims to value: mobility, hardship postings, functional versatility, service across agencies. At the point of review, the Administration took the position that her years of service with UNOPS and UNRWA were to be excluded entirely. They were not credited toward the required five years of continuous service, nor were they included in the calculation of eligibility points. In effect, the most substantial and high-risk phase of her UN career was treated as if it had no legal weight whatsoever.
This decision effectively disqualified over a decade of service in the UN system based on the assertion that UNOPS and UNRWA were not governed by exactly the same set of UN Staff Regulations and Rules. The legal reasoning ignored the very instrument that governs inter-agency mobility: the Inter-Organization Agreement (IOA), which clearly states that service transferred or seconded between organizations in the UN common system must be treated as if it were performed in the receiving entity. In short, the Administration applied selective readings of policy to exclude her entire trajectory, while continuing to reward those who had never once left the comfort of headquarters.
The Tribunal found the decision unlawful. It held that the refusal to recognize the applicant’s service with UNOPS and UNRWA violated the IOA, misapplied the Secretariat’s own administrative issuances, and deprived her of points to which she was clearly entitled. The Tribunal’s findings leave no ambiguity. The Administration’s refusal to credit her service was not only unsupported by the applicable legal framework , it effectively penalized her for having served in some of the UN’s most complex and high-risk duty stations. But, this isn’t new…
Under Ban Ki-moon’s leadership, the Organization launched one of its most aggressively marketed internal campaigns: mobility and gender parity. The Secretariat issued bulletin after bulletin on the need for more women in senior leadership roles and the importance of posting to hardship duty stations. It was framed as a new era : a system-wide policy shift aimed at leveling the playing field and rewarding those who took the difficult assignments. On paper, it looked like change but in reality, it became another layer of empty rhetoric used to justify selective recognition.
I went to Syria voluntarily. It was a start-up mission at the peak of the war. We were operating under bombing raids, chronic insecurity, limited access, and no infrastructure. I was one of the very few senior women in the field at the time, tasked with building systems from scratch while trying to protect staff and maintain operational continuity in a collapsing environment. It was the clearest expression of what the UN says it values: service, courage, competence, and commitment to mission.
And yet, when the permanent appointment exercise came, the officials in OHRM (now DMSPC) together with the legal advisors at UNHQ, determined that I would not be granted the permanent appointment, relying on the claim that a prior shift in my contractual status from a 100 series to a 300 series appointment rendered me ineligible, despite the fact that I met every requirement, including geographic mobility, language proficiency, sustained performance, and service in a Category E duty station..
I never placed much value on the permanent appointment. Years earlier, I had willingly given up a stable 100-series fixed-term contract to take on a far less secure 300-series appointment because the work mattered more than the contractual security. But when the Administration later denied me the permanent appointment invoking baseless arguments and disregarding the very eligibility framework it had put in place, the issue became one of principle.
The Administration understood that their position would not withstand judicial scrutiny. A contested proceeding would have exposed the disconnect between policy and practice: a senior woman, deployed to Syria under daily shelling, fulfilling every requirement for eligibility, yet denied a permanent appointment at the height of a public campaign promoting gender parity and field mobility. The reputational risk was evident. The decision was quietly reversed before the matter could proceed to the Tribunal not out of acknowledgment of wrongdoing, but to avoid the consequences of having that contradiction examined in a public forum.
That was in 2010.
One would think the Organization had evolved since then that at the very least, it had learned from its administrative missteps. But it hasn’t. The very same officials who tried to block my appointment in 2010 are still sitting in UNHQ today, in the same chairs, behind the same walls, producing nothing of value while field staff carry the actual weight of this system. And now, they are attempting to deprive another woman one who served in the occupied Palestinian territory, in Gaza and Jerusalem, under UNOPS and UNRWA of the same rights they tried to withhold from me.
While they remain in place, untouched, unexamined, and shielded from accountability, it is field staff who have carried the weight of the Organization’s work.
They are the ones who have built trust across fractured communities, negotiated access under threat, coordinated humanitarian response in collapsing systems, and operated in proximity to real, daily risk.
This article does not call into question the integrity or dedication of staff serving in headquarters duty stations ( I myself have served in both New York and Geneva). The issue lies squarely with those in positions of authority: the decision-makers in operations, policy, and legal offices, who continue to uphold and reproduce practices that systematically disadvantage those who served where the UN’s presence was most needed.
Just days after the OCHA/Geneva ruling, a second judgment UNDT/2025/041 followed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of a staff member based in Nairobi and later deployed to Somalia, finding that the Administration had unlawfully excluded his years of Secretariat service during a secondment from UNICEF to UNEP when assessing his eligibility for a continuing appointment. The decision was rescinded.
What comes next is already in motion. A wave of suspension of action requests, many of which have already been registered with the Management Evaluation Unit and the UN Dispute Tribunal, will contest non-renewals and terminations triggered by the highly dubious UN80 review exercise.
And brace yourselves, because once again, the staff who will bear the brunt of these administrative purges are none other than field personnel or, as UNHQ prefers to label them, staff “serving in entities that do not apply the exact same set of Staff Rules and Regulations.”
You could serve in Gaza, Mogadishu, or Aleppo but if your contract wasn’t minted at HQ, good luck proving you exist.
Apparently, you can survive mortar fire, but not a footnote in ST/AI/2012/3.
⚠️ Trigger Warning: This post contains references to mental illness, psychiatric treatment, and the public disclosure of confidential medical records.
In what can only be described as a fundamental breach of the principles of due process, medical confidentiality, and dignity in adjudication, the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals (UNDT and UNAT) have entered dangerous territory: staff members who bring forward claims of moral harm are now being required to submit detailed medical evidence to support their case including psychiatric evaluations, therapy notes, and, in several instances, we have seen the records of the exact names of anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medications that staff members are taking. These records are not sealed and are quoted verbatim in publicly available judgments, often alongside the full names of the staff members concerned.
According to UNDT/UNAT the question of what constitutes moral injury justifying an award of compensation and what kind of evidence is sufficient or necessary to prove such injury was settled in Kallon 2017-UNAT-742:
“compensation may only be awarded for harm, supported by evidence. The mere fact of administrative wrongdoing will not necessarily lead to an award of compensation under Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute. The party alleging moral injury (or any harm for that matter) carries the burden to adduce sufficient evidence proving beyond a balance of probabilities the existence of factors causing harm to the victim’s personality rights or dignity, comprised of psychological, emotional, spiritual, reputational and analogous intangible or non- patrimonial incidents of personality.”
While in the past medical records were occasionally submitted to support claims of moral harm, they have now become the exclusive evidentiary standardfor awarding moral damages. The Tribunals have progressively adopted an evidentiary model that mirrors civil tort litigation, requiring formal psychiatric diagnoses and compelling the claimant to demonstrate a direct causal link between their mental health condition and the contested administrative decision.
In theory, this may appear aligned with principles of fairness and proportionality. In practice, it has translated into an invasive and burdensome standard of proof that disregards the psychological vulnerability of United Nations staff members many of whom are already navigating the aftermath of harassment, retaliation, abuse of authority, or abrupt termination.
The trend is particularly visible in recent UNDT jurisprudence, which has moved aggressively toward rejecting moral harm claims absent clinical documentation. Meanwhile, the Administration often contests even the most robust medical reports, challenging diagnoses, questioning causality, and in some cases, casting doubt on the credibility of the staff member’s treating physician. All of this, it must be said, for what is often a nominal and symbolic award of moral damages.
What is particularly alarming is that these medical records, ordinarily protected under doctor–patient privilege and recognized universally as confidential are neither submitted under seal nor reviewed ex parte. Instead, they are routinely cited verbatim in public judgments, including diagnostic labels, medication regimens, therapy histories, and treatment timelines, all tied explicitly to the staff member’s full name. The implications are profound: staff members are being forced to choose between their right to seek redress and the irreversible exposure of their most intimate medical history. This practice does not reflect a restorative approach to justice; rather, it institutionalizes procedural retraumatization within the framework of the UN’s internal justice system.
In 2022, I published a compendium documenting all moral damages awarded by the UN Dispute and Appeals Tribunals between 2010 and 2022, a first-of-its-kind resource mapping how the UN’s own judicial bodies acknowledged psychological harm inflicted on staff through unlawful administrative action. That body of research revealed a consistent pattern of decisions confirming moral injury, yet without any corresponding accountability for the perpetrators.
This month, I completed the updated edition of that compendium attached below, now covering the period from 2010 through June 2025 (15 years of moral damages in the UN). The research process revealed what can only be described as a disturbing evolution of jurisprudence. In reviewing the most recent judgments, I encountered not only a sharp reduction in the number of moral damage awards, but a series of rulings whose factual and evidentiary treatment of staff mental health conditions defies both legal logic and basic human decency.
Between 2023 and 2025, the trend has become unmistakable. Moral damages, already inconsistently awarded, have now been all but eliminated. In 2024, not a single judgment awarded compensation for moral damages, including in cases where staff succeeded on the merits. On paper, this decline might suggest an improvement in workplace conditions or a reduction in harmful decisions. It is nothing of the sort. The data reflects not progress but regression due to a judicial environment increasingly hostile to acknowledging trauma, and increasingly unwilling to grant redress for it.
Judicial Retrenchment and the Contestation of Psychological Harm
This marked decline cannot be attributed to an absence of harm, but rather to two interrelated developments within the internal justice system that have significantly narrowed the path to compensation for moral damages.
1. Invasive Evidentiary Requirements (Reinforced)
Beyond this shift in evidentiary standards, what is increasingly evident is the practical chilling effect it has imposed on staff. Faced with the prospect of submitting deeply personal psychiatric records, often including diagnostic notes, medication regimens, and therapy histories, many staff members are opting not to seek moral damages at all. This is particularly true for survivors of sexual harassment, whistleblowers, and those wrongfully terminated or unlawfully reassigned and retaliated against, for whom exposure of mental health records carries not only reputational risk but personal retraumatization.
Crucially, these records are not protected through sealed submissions or ex parte review. Instead, they are admitted into evidence and then cited verbatim in publicly accessible judgments. The disclosure of such sensitive information, without redaction and often alongside the staff member’s full name, violates the most basic norms of privacy and procedural dignity. The result is that those most in need of protection are left without remedy, silenced not by legal weakness but by an evidentiary process that demands they trade justice for exposure.
2. Systemic Refusal to Anonymize Judgments
Closely linked to the evidentiary burden is the UN Tribunals’ continued refusal to anonymize judgments even where the content concerns severe psychological harm, family trauma, or sensitive medical conditions. The identity of the staff member is routinely disclosed, regardless of whether they prevailed in their appeal or were vindicated after years of reputational damage.
While the General Assembly has endorsed the principle of transparency in the publication of judgments, this mandate was never intended to come at the cost of retraumatizing victims. In practice, the current approach disproportionately affects staff members, particularly those who win their cases, while shielding the individuals or systems responsible for the harm.
It is difficult to argue that publishing the names of victims serves any institutional purpose. On the contrary, it has become a deterrent. Staff who might otherwise challenge unlawful conduct are dissuaded from doing so for fear of public exposure, stigmatization, or digital permanence. At a minimum, those who prevail in their appeals should not be penalized by having their identities permanently associated with intimate psychiatric disclosures. Justice must protect, not expose.
The practice of anonymizing sensitive judicial decisions is not novel; it is well-established in other international tribunals such as the ILOAT and the European Court of Human Rights, particularly where reputational and psychological harm are at issue. The UN Tribunals must now align with these standards not only as a matter of consistency, but as a matter of basic decency.
A close review of recent jurisprudence reveals an increasingly adversarial posture by the Administration, namely, the Secretary-General’s legal apparatus, toward the recognition and compensation of moral harm, even in cases involving clear vulnerability, trauma, and institutional failure.
One particularly distressing example is UNDT/2024/003 Guezel appealed to UNAT 2025-UNAT-1531 a case involving a deceased UN staff member who died in service, leaving behind a semi-literate widow and an 11-year-old daughter in a remote village in Laos. The family, entirely dependent on the staff member, had minimal contact with the Organization and no functional knowledge of UN procedures or official languages. It took over two and a half years for the Administration to process their ABCC compensation claim. During this period, the widow received no meaningful communication, only vague assurances that the matter was under review.
The family brought a claim for compensation for the undue delay and sought moral damages for the psychological harm they endured. The child, who was the first to find her father’s lifeless body, was deemed too traumatized to testify. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found the facts sufficiently grave to award compensation. In response, the Administration appealed, arguing that the family’s moral harm was “not corroborated by reliable independent evidence”because no psychiatric reports were submitted.
In a rare and important intervention, the UNAT in Judgment 2025-UNAT-1531 rejected the Administration’s challenge. It affirmed the UNDT’s reliance on a handwritten letter submitted by the widow, which provided a restrained yet deeply affecting account of the family’s suffering. The Appeals Tribunal noted:
“Despite the personal sufferings it described, the letter was polite, objective and restrained in its tone… Its unchallenged content amply justified the award of moral damages, and we will not interfere with this award or its amount.”
Significantly, the UNAT went further, acknowledging that “the failure to seek medical attention for mental health was caused by cultural beliefs,” and explicitly recognized that factors such as limited education, environment, and social norms must inform the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence. It reaffirmed that moral harm may be corroborated through alternative forms of proof, not solely medical documentation.
These are the kinds of judgments the system urgently needs more of: balanced, context-sensitive, and grounded in a humane understanding of evidence. Yet regrettably, they remain the exception when they should be the norm. This approach to moral harm should not be a rare judicial act of empathy, it should be the default standard across all moral damages claims
In another case, UNDT/2025/021, a survivor of the 2020 Beirut Port explosion, whose PTSD diagnosis was not disputed in principle was subjected to intense evidentiary scrutiny by the UN’s legal team, which contested the extent of her trauma and succeeded in having her entire psychiatric history including medication details published in the judgment. The most intimate aspects of her mental health are now permanently accessible in the public domain.
These are not isolated cases. I am personally aware of a former UNHCR staff member who withdrew her complaint of sexual harassment when the UNDT refused to grant her anonymity, despite the sensitivity of the allegations. The cost of pursuing redress was simply too high.
In case after case, moral harm is treated as irrelevant, excluded from consideration regardless of the circumstances. The process discourages the vulnerable, retraumatizes survivors, and treats mental suffering as collateral to litigation. It is a system where the burden of proof has become a weapon, and justice, a deterrent.
Restoring the Duty of Care: Jurisprudential and Procedural Reforms
If the UN Tribunals are unwilling to revise their evidentiary threshold in the immediate term, they must, at a minimum, adopt protective procedural measures during a transition period.
One urgent reform is to allow medical records supporting claims of moral harm to be submitted ex parte. These documents, often containing the most intimate details of a staff member’s psychological state, should never be cited in open judgments, let alone quoted verbatim. These documents are not policy arguments. They are human evidence of institutional failure and must be treated with the corresponding degree of care and discretion.
Moreover, the Tribunals must recognize that psychological harm does not always manifest within the narrow timeframe of litigation. Many staff members develop PTSD, depression, or anxiety after the conclusion of proceedings, even after winning their cases. The notion that unlawful termination, reassignment, retaliation, or sexual harassment can occur without psychological consequence is not only clinically unsound: it is legally absurd.
If a staff member has succeeded in proving such violations, the presumption of resulting harm should follow naturally. Requiring further proof of what is self-evident reflects a detachment from lived reality and an insensitivity to the nature of trauma itself.
How can a staff member succeed in proving that they were unlawfully terminated, harassed, reassigned without justification, or subjected to retaliatory investigations only to be told that this is not, in itself, evidence of harm? The Tribunal’s approach effectively severs the link between the violation and its natural psychological consequences, as if institutional abuse can exist without emotional fallout.
Who among us could be summarily dismissed, publicly discredited, blacklisted from future employment, and dragged through years of litigation and emerge psychologically unscathed? The causal relationship between systemic injustice and mental distress is both medically recognized and self-evident.
Yet the Tribunal demands granular proof of that suffering:, diagnosis by diagnosis, pill by pill, as though trauma must be itemized to be believed.
It is time for the UN Tribunals to fundamentally change their approach. In cases involving unlawful termination, harassment (including sexual harassment), retaliation or abuse, where the staff member prevails, moral damages should be awarded automatically. The burden must not fall on the staff member to further justify that which the facts of the case already imply.
The Way Forward: Immediate Procedural Reforms
The Tribunal system must urgently align itself with international best practices, such as those adopted by the ILOAT and adopt procedural safeguards that center the dignity of staff. The following reforms are both feasible and overdue:
Anonymize all UNDT and UNAT judgments by default, particularly those involving medical harm, sexual harassment, or whistleblower retaliation. There is no defensible legal rationale for exposing the identity of a staff member who has already suffered harm. Transparency must not come at the expense of protection.
Permit the submission of medical records ex parte and shield such documents from publication. These records are not legal arguments; they are deeply personal evidence of suffering. Requiring staff to disclose them publicly compounds harm and deters rightful claims.
Acknowledge the delayed onset of moral harm. The current requirement that staff demonstrate contemporaneous trauma fails to account for the well-documented reality that mental health deterioration often occurs after the legal battle has ended. Any credible adjudicative system must reflect this understanding in its reasoning.
What is particularly troubling and fundamentally contradictory is how the jurisprudence of international administrative law has, for decades, clearly articulated the Organization’s duty of care toward its staff. From UNAdT Judgments No. 872, Hjelmqvist (1998) and No. 1273, Aidenbaum (2006), to ILOAT Judgment No. 402, In re Grasshoff (1980) and ADB Decision No. 5, Bares (1995), the principle has been consistent: employers especially international organizations bear a legal and moral obligation to safeguard the dignity, well-being, and mental health of their personnel.
Yet, despite this established body of jurisprudence, the UN Tribunals today systematically fail to apply the same logic when it comes to moral damages. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in the Tribunal’s refusal to presume harm in cases of serious rights violations, and its insistence on invasive evidentiary thresholds that effectively negate the very concept of duty of care.
In Judgments No. 1125, Mwangi (2003) and No. 1204, Durand (2005), the former UN Administrative Tribunal held that staff regulation 1.2(c) codifies a duty of protection with the force of a general principle of law. In Mwangi, the Tribunal was unequivocal:
“Even where such obligations are not expressly spelled out in the Regulations and Rules, general principles of law would impose such an obligation, as would normally be expected of every employer. The United Nations, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.”
And yet, that respect is nowhere to be found in the current treatment of staff seeking redress for psychological harm. The UN speaks of duty of care in policy papers, mental health strategies, and inter-agency frameworks but in the courtroom, it retreats to technicalities, burdens of proof, and bureaucratic cruelty.
Until the UN Tribunals implement the most basic reforms from protecting medical confidentiality to restoring the presumption of harm and anonymizing victims by default, UN staff seeking justice will continue to face a brutal choice: suffer in silence, or disclose their most intimate psychiatric records to the system that failed them.
Submit Your Antidepressants to the Judge: UN Justice in 2025
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:
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.
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.
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 appointmentin 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 portfoliomultiple 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.
A long-serving international female staff member at UNICEF Lana* (name changed to protect her identity) found herself trapped in an ethical and institutional nightmare after reporting sexual harassment and abuse of authority by a senior official in UNICEF’s Executive Office.
The staff member had spent 15 years in the UN system. When the sexual harassment and abuse began, she did what few dare: she filed a formal complaint with UNICEF’s internal investigative body, the Office of Internal Audit and Investigations (OIAI). A bold and principled move. Except the OIAI reports directly to the Executive Director (ED) of UNICEF. And the perpetrator? He works in the Executive Office.
So, unsurprisingly, almost predictably, the OIAI quietly closed the case and dismissed all of Lana’s allegations without proper examination. When the staff member requested a copy of the investigation closure report?
Denied.
No explanation. No legitimate reason. Just a wall of silence and impunity.
Or maybe the reason is obvious: the investigation is just flawed and in essence a lame cover-up. And they had no legal or moral grounds to dismiss the allegations. But when you are the system, you answer to no one. Technically, the staff member could challenge the decision before the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT). But that process takes years. And in the meantime, most staff who dare to challenge power are either sidelined, gagged or conveniently as we all know, terminated.
Which is exactly what happened to Lana.
She appealed to the UNDT, asking the Tribunal to order UNICEF to produce the investigation report. The Tribunal complied. What Lana discovered in that report was staggering: not only had the OIAI neglected to verify or properly assess her evidence, they had turned the report against her. New, completely unfounded allegations had been added: against the victim. The person who had dared to speak up was now being framed as the problem.
Then came the part that strips the UN’s “zero tolerance” policy bare: just words, no backbone.
Lana submitted new evidence. Substantial. Verifiable. She pleaded for the OIAI to reopen the case.
Lana wasn’t met with silence. Far from it.
UNICEF responded, but not with accountability, not with a re-investigation, or even a hint of integrity. What she got instead was an offer: A payout.
A price tag slapped on her silence.
In plain terms: hush money.
It was UNICEF’s Legal and HR teams who came knocking offering her a “hush money settlement”. The message was clear: erase the evidence, walk away from the Tribunal, take the money, and vanish. And let’s be honest, offers like this don’t land without quiet approval from the very top. The management didn’t want resolution. They just wanted Lana to disappear. Silence was the entire point.
To understand how deep this rot goes, one only needs to look at the internal power structure.
The perpetrator works in the Executive Office, reporting directly to the Deputy Executive Director.
The Deputy Executive Director oversees the Legal and HR Departments who offered “hush money”.
OIAI, the body supposedly tasked with impartial investigation, reports to the Executive Director.
So when Legal and HR offered hush money to Lana, it was, circumstantially, linked to the Deputy Executive Director, who also happens to be the direct supervisor of the perpetrator. Draw your own conclusions.
These reporting structures are what I’d call carefully placed buffer positions. They allow the Executive Director to claim independence in decision-making, to pretend there’s a wall between them and these departments. But let’s not kid ourselves. These walls are paper-thin. And more often than not, bad decisions especially the ones that bury accountability, are either taken or, at the very least, quietly cleared at the top.
Lana also turned to the Ombudsman’s Office, yet another internal mechanism that, in theory, is there to help staff navigate conflict and find resolution. But just like the Ethics Office, it turned out to be a symbolic structure with no power and no spine. She was met with the same institutional indifference, the same empty reassurances. Another dead end dressed up as support.
Every single department that is meant to protect staff, uphold ethics, and ensure accountability (Investigations, Legal, HR, Ethics, Ombudsman) is structurally subordinate to the very people they might need to investigate. In other words, they don’t just fail to protect staff: they arestructurally incapable of doing so.
In Lana’s case, it wasn’t just the Investigations Office that shut the door. It was the same office that refused to revise the new evidence she submitted, evidence they never properly reviewed in the first place and worse, they closed the case while quietly inserting new allegations against her. The victim.
And it didn’t stop there.
It was both the Legal Department and the HR Department that offered Lana a significant sum of hush money, on the condition that she withdraw the new evidence and drop her case from the UN Tribunal.
Now I’ve seen cases where a staff member is offered some kind of package: when there’s a performance issue, personality clashes, restructuring, or simply a dead end at work. These things happen. But hush money in a sexual harassment case? In the UN?
That’s a whole different story. And if this is now an accepted or even defendable practice by the UN’s legal departments, then the Secretary-General has a serious problem on his hands. Because the next time he repeats that tired line about “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment, Member States should ask him one thing:
Since when does zero tolerance come with a price tag?
It’s not just the departments supposedly tasked with upholding the UN’s zero tolerance policy that are busy handing out hush money, now it seems the practice has spread. Contagious, even. Because the latest to follow suit? None other than the UN Tribunal itself.
In an outrageous and telling move, the UN Dispute Tribunal itself: yes, the body created to be independent issued an order that referenced the General Assembly’s encouragement of alternative dispute resolution. The judge then invited the parties to “explore the possibility” of resolving the dispute amicably, without further litigation and reaching an “amicable settlement”.
Excuse me?
What kind of justice is that? Since when is hush money an “amicable resolution” to sexual harassment? What happened to accountability? To dignity? What message does this send to every other woman in the UN system who is being harassed right now?
What about Lana’s mental health?
Her safety?
Her career?
And what about the women who remain behind in that office? Do they not deserve protection from a known perpetrator? What duty of care is being exercised here by UNICEF leadership, Legal, HR or the Tribunal, for that matter?
So what does this say about the UN’s broader approach to sexual exploitation and abuse of beneficiaries? If an international staff member with 15 years of service can be bought off, silenced, and pushed out for reporting abuse, then what chance does a refugee woman or a malnourished girl in a conflict zone have?
What does it take to silence them?
A plastic toy?
A bag of rice?
Lana’s case is emblematic of a much darker truth: the UN has mastered the art of making victims disappear, while keeping perpetrators comfortably in place.
The truth is, when you’re not in power in this system; especially when you’re a woman, you are invisible. You are disposable. And if you remind them that your dignity is not for sale, they will make sure you no longer exist in the organization.
They do not see you. They do not hear you. And they certainly do not protect you.
What they do protect, at all costs, is each other.
Because let’s face it: no one is really interested in hearing your story, especially if it’s a story about sexual harassment or abuse. What they want is simple. Make it go away. Bury it. Discredit it. Pay it off. Anything but face it.
🔺 Trigger Warning: This post contains references to the 2020 Beirut explosion, psychological trauma, and institutional neglect related to mental health. Please take care while reading.
The UN’s mental health strategy looks great in PowerPoint. But when a staff member survives one of the largest explosions in history and develops PTSD, the response is to deny remote work and push her toward termination.
How exactly is UN80 supposed to reflect the UN’s so-called “duty of care” when, even in the absence of budget cuts, political hurdles, or operational constraints, a UN Under-Secretary-General is allowed to deny a telecommuting request to a staff member injured in one of the most catastrophic explosions in modern history?
Judgment UNDT/2025/021, released two days ago, details how far ESCWA’s top leadership, including its Under Secretary-General (USG) and Director of Administration went to push out a staff member injured in the 4 August 2020 Beirut blast. That explosion, one of the largest non-nuclear blasts ever recorded, killed over 200 people and injured more than 7,000, including the Applicant.
The staff member, an ESCWA official, was one of those wounded. She was medically evacuated to Germany, later relocated to the United States, and began treatment for multiple physical injuries and chronic PTSD. Initially, ESCWA authorized telecommuting to allow her to recover. Then, without warning or justification, that support was abruptly withdrawn.
By mid-2023, she was being pressured to report not to Beirut, her original duty station but to Amman, a reassignment never agreed upon, and one that directly contradicted her treating physician’s medical advice. She requested a two-month extension of her telecommuting arrangement based on her ongoing treatment plan. ESCWA’s USG flatly denied the request. With no other option, she took two months of Special Leave Without Pay.
By November 2023, she was scheduled for a medical procedure in the U.S. Her doctor submitted formal documentation recommending she remain in the U.S. for surgery, follow-up, and psychiatric care. ESCWA ignored it. Instead, its Director of Administration proposed termination:
“I understand that there was a stage where you were considering an agreed termination package, which then took a different turn. This may be a good way to go in my view, if you were still open to this. Given that a return is unlikely, I would like to suggest that we start exploring the idea of an Agreed Termination Package.”
So the solution from senior UN management to a recovering staff member with work-related injuries and PTSD was simple: take a package and go away.
In February 2024, her physician once again reiterated the medical necessity of staying in the United States. ESCWA’s response?
Demand further “evidence” and challenge the judgment of a licensed treating physician. And again, the specter of termination was raised.
Let’s call it what it is: a coordinated campaign to pressure an injured staff member into quitting. First, ESCWA withdrew remote work without cause. Then they tried to force her into a duty station against medical advice. When she refused, they made her choose between her health and her job.
The inevitable happened. Her condition worsened.
Her physician’s medical report, issued 4 February 2024, reproduced extensively in the UNDT judgment, is explicit:
“Her anxiety and depressive symptoms have recently deteriorated due to persistent challenges to resume her work and/or secure a reasonable alternative position within the UN organization. As her physical, professional, psychological, and financial security are all now threatened, [the Applicant] is decompensating psychologically. She now struggles with her sleep, low energy, and lack of motivation, in addition to having panic attacks with increasing frequency. She is now requiring psychiatric medication for the management in her symptoms, which was not previously necessary.
Given her history of chronic PTSD, it is important to prioritize both her physical and psychological well-being and ongoing treatment. I have recommended against temporary assignments outside the United States, in order for her to continue with her established medical care and access to social supports. In addition, I would advise she not resume work in Lebanon specifically due the risks of being re-traumatization.
Considering [the Applicant] is trying to recover from a significant work-related injury, it is not clear to me as to why she is being forced to decide between continuing her medical care or her job and professional livelihood within the UN.
If she prioritizes her medical and psychological care, because she is being told she cannot work remotely, then she is placed in the position of resigning from her job. And yet, she is not being given a reason as to why she cannot work remotely.”
This is how it plays out, time and again: once a staff member shows signs of illness, especially psychological trauma, the system shifts into quiet expulsion mode. The tone hardens, medical evidence is challenged, and instead of support, they are treated as a liability.
What follows is a familiar sequence: isolate, discredit, pressure, remove. It’s a pattern the Organization repeats across cases, in direct contradiction to its own duty of care framework and the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of health status.
When will the UN understand that care cannot be conditional or even performative?
You don’t get to claim duty of care when it only applies to the well.
The Tribunal had no trouble characterizing ESCWA’s conduct: “a quintessential abuse of discretion.”
Bear in mind that the same USG at ESCWA has been the subject of multiple tribunal cases, formal complaints, and accusations of abuse of authority. Staff have won those cases at the UNDT and UNAT. The Secretary-General was fully informed. And what did he do? He renewed her contract last year.
The UN’s much-publicized “duty of care” and its glossy “mental health strategy” are public relations stunts, a smokescreen to hide the routine violations happening behind closed doors. The only mental health the UN protects is that of senior officials, whose positions remain untouched no matter how many staff they trample.
And let’s not kid ourselves: this decision has a geopolitical undertone. The Executive Secretary’s home country is not without influence, and when it comes to top appointments, power trumps accountability every time. The UN’s strategy on mental health, duty of care, and trauma recovery collapses the moment power is challenged. The very policies designed to support staff are weaponized against them. The façade holds as long as no one needs the protection those policies promise.
And when UN80 arrives with its structural overhaul, this is the blueprint. Efficiency will mean elimination. Restructuring will mean displacement. Psychological welfare won’t enter the equation.
So, to every staff member bracing for the wave of reforms under UN80, know this: structural reviews won’t prioritize your well-being. They will accelerate what’s already happening: an institutional purge devoid of empathy, fairness, or legality.
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.
One year ago, I published two articles exposing the deeply entrenched discrimination by UNRWA’s senior management against its Palestinian staff. Today, new and disturbing developments have emerged: ones that point not only to continued injustice but to an alarming pattern of decisions by the Commissioner-General and Western White Leadership within UNRWA that appear to serve the interests of the Israeli government and its lobbies at the direct expense of UNRWA Palestinian staff.
The ultimate trajectory?
The dismantling of UNRWA itself, particularly in Gaza.
Before revisiting the longstanding denial of rights to UNRWA Palestinian staff, it is essential to unpack the latest evidence.
UNAT Tribunal Slams UNRWA’s Abusive Use of “Neutrality” to Silence Palestinian Staff
A United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) judgment issued yesterday has delivered a stark and critical blow to UNRWA’s interpretation and enforcement of its so-called neutrality framework. In plain terms: UNRWA’s senior management, largely composed of Western officials, has been using this framework unlawfully to persecute its own Palestinian staff, often under the pretext of “anti-Semitism.” The judgment exposes the illegality and disproportionate severity of disciplinary measures imposed on Palestinian staff in ways that are unprecedented across the UN system.
This ruling shines a spotlight on the extreme and frankly, obsessive approach UNRWA has taken, positioning itself as one of the only UN agencies willing to weaponize neutrality as a tool of suppression. And the motivation? To appease the Israeli government and its lobbying networks.
The UNRWA Apartheid: Salaries for the West, Silence for Gaza
Equally disturbing is the Commissioner-General’s recent decision to suspend the pay of more than 560 Gaza staff and their families, while continuing to pay international (primarily Western) staff, even those hired under short-term surge contracts. In March 2025, Palestinian staff who had self-evacuated outside Gaza for survival were threatened with either returning to a warzone or being placed on “exceptional leave without pay.”
Less than a week ago, the Commissioner General enacted his threat and suspended the pay of some 560 Gazan staff and their families. The affected staff and their families, already displaced, were suddenly left without income or support.
This is not a logistical issue but rather a policy of abandonment. No Gaza staff member can return to the Strip today, even if they wished to. Yet UNRWA’s top leadership is punishing them for fleeing a warzone by cutting off their livelihoods.
Contrast this with the treatment of international staff: those who were evacuated were immediately offered remote working arrangements under the Alternate Working Arrangements (AWA) policy. They continue to receive full pay and benefits, working comfortably from their home countries and surrounded by the warmth of their immediate families. Even temporary international “surge staff,” recruited using the Gaza Emergency Flash Appeal funds to work inside Gaza, were not let go after evacuation: they, too, were shockingly placed on remote work and continue to be paid handsomely.
How is it legally and morally justifiable to offer full pay and protection to temporary international staff, brought in only to support Gaza operations, while denying the same to 560 Palestinian core staff whose work and knowledge sustain UNRWA’s education and relief operations?
Many of the suspended Gaza staff were educators who had developed alternative methods to continue basic education amid the conflict. Yet rather than support their efforts, the Commissioner-General is enacting policies that align more closely with the stated goals of the Israeli government: the dismantling of UNRWA and its mandate.
Publicly, the Commissioner-General says otherwise. But as we all know, in human rights, it is not the statements but the actions that define the truth.
Diplomats Get D-1 Contracts. Gazans Get Graves. UNRWA’s Moral Ledge
Despite receiving millions under the Emergency Flash Appeal for Gaza, the Commissioner-General is diverting funds away from Palestinian staff and toward bolstering UNRWA’s alleged diplomatic presence. Just today, UNRWA announced it is recruiting of “top-notch representatives”(yes you read that correctly…) for New York and Geneva at the D-1 level: positions that serve Western advocacy goals rather than Palestinian survival.
Why does UNRWA need more Western directors stationed far from the frontlines, getting paid huge salaries from the Gaza Flash Appeal (money that was destined for the Palestinians and not the Westerners) when its Gaza operations are collapsing and its staff are being systematically killed and buried under the rubbles?
Speaking of money and funding, a timely reminder.
Let us now return to what UNRWA owes to its Palestinian staff in Gaza.
As previously documented, UNRWA has systematically excluded its Palestinian staff from coverage under two key UN policies that are universally applied to other UN staff in conflict zones:
Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP), which provides compensation for death and permanent disability due to acts of war.
Security Evacuation and Entitlements Policies, which ensure that local staff are treated with parity during crises.
Despite being fully eligible under both, UNRWA’s Palestinian staff have been denied access to these protections for years. Why? Mainly because they are Palestinians, they don’t know their rights, and it comes with a significant cost to UNRWA.
At the time of my earlier reporting, 103 UNRWA staff had been killed by Israel.
Today, that number is estimated to exceed 700.
700 UNRWA humanitarian workers performing their duties under the United Nations Flag.
Yet UNRWA has refused to release an official death count, let alone compensate the families. Each family is entitled to approximately $120,000 in compensation: an essential lifeline under MAIP. Not one of these families has received a cent.
Instead, the Emergency Appeal funds are being used to finance the recruitment of international staff who are now sitting comfortably abroad under AWA status. At the same time, 560 Gazan families are left destitute.
What may be the most disturbing aspect of all: Gazan families have stopped reporting the deaths of their UNRWA-employed relatives. Why? Because they have discovered that once UNRWA is notified of a staff member’s death, their salary is immediately terminated, thereby cutting off the last thread of support for their surviving family.
UNRWA is punishing the families of the dead.
Let that sink in.
A few days ago, at the UNHQ’s noon briefing in New York, a journalist asked the following question to the Secretary-General’s spokesperson
“Question: what about UN staffers inside Gaza? I mean, those Palestinian UN staffers? What’s the situation for them now? Are they have the same situation with other Gazan people?
Spokesman: I mean, our Palestinian colleagues who work for the United Nations — most of them work for UNRWA — are doing two things. They’re continuing to work to help civilians in Gaza. And they’re also like the people they’re trying to help, just trying to survive. They’re facing the same challenges as the rest of the population, while trying to work and maintain operations with the dwindling stocks that we have.”
But no mention was made of the 700 UNRWA staff killed. No mention was made of the UNRWA Palestinian families left without income or support. No commitment was made to compensate the dead. No acknowledgment of the systemic discrimination was uttered.
Instead, UNRWA continues to present a façade of solidarity with Palestinians, while actively undermining them from within.
Western staff are recruited, promoted, and protected.
Palestinian staff are suspended, unpaid, and buried.
This structural discrimination and racism from within UNRWA’s top leadership is enabling a system where Westerners are paid to advocate for the very people they are simultaneously disenfranchising. It is funneling donor money into Geneva offices and diplomatic posts instead of to the bereaved and the displaced. And it is doing all of this while flying the flag of neutrality.
What is clearly impossible to ignore right now is that UNRWA’s senior Westen led management is complicit in the structural dismantling of its own mandate by elevating Western political optics over Palestinian human lives.
You cannot claim to protect when your policies kill.
You cannot claim justice while burying your own staff.
There is no policy framework in the world that can excuse the abandonment of 700 of your own.
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.
OSLA, the UN Office of Staff Legal Assistance, once a champion for staff rights, has transformed into an instrument of the administration. Today, it does not just fail to protect UN employees, it unfortunately actively pressures them into unethical agreements that strip them of their rights. Staff members facing disciplinary actions are coerced into signing ‘Letters of Undertaking,’ agreements (so called “agreed sanctions”) designed to silence them and prevent future legal action. How did we get here? The answer lies in OSLA’s troubling evolution over the years.
For a long time, up until 2010, UN staff did not have any real professional staff unit to assist with their grievances and appeals. OSLA’s predecessor, the Panel of Counsel, existed but its support was extremely limited and not truly independent.
In 2008, recognizing the huge disparity in legal weight between the ruthless legal machinery of the Secretary-General defending the administration and the often isolated and sinking UN staff, the General Assembly approved Resolution 63/253 on 24 December 2008 to establish the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA). Its mandate was to provide legal advice and representation to approximately 75,000 staff (and former staff) worldwide.
Established as part of the reform of the internal justice system of the United Nations, OSLA also provides assistance with, and formal representation in, cases before the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals. In a way, OSLA was created to support the lonely staff member who suddenly finds themselves lost in the myriad of rules, deadlines, processes, and forms to fill. That used to be the case, but not anymore.
Don’t get me wrong. I am an avid supporter of OSLA and am thankful for their work. But something has been shifting in both their undeclared policies and modus operandi over the years, and it is not good.
Two Minor Observations on the Form:
First, just like the Panel of Counsel, OSLA staff are still UN employees, so no matter how hard one tries to dissociate them from the administration, a conflict of interest persists. Although the Secretary-General reiterates the independence of OSLA, true independence is unattainable unless OSLA’s lawyers are external professionals and not UN staff, and unless its funding is entirely separate from the UN payroll. After all, many of these lawyers later apply for positions on the other side: the administration, so they have every incentive not to create hostility with it.
Second, the budget: for years now, OSLA has been staffed with a maximum of 15 professional lawyers who are supposed to assist a workforce of approximately 75,000 staff.
Yes, you read that correctly.
That means there is one OSLA lawyer for every 5,000 staff members.
This is a shockingly inadequate ratio by any measure.
OSLA has also relied on the Voluntary Supplemental Funding Mechanism, through which staff members could contribute additional resources via a small monthly payroll deduction amounting to 0.05% of net base salary. This mechanism has proven worthless, with staff members dissatisfied with OSLA’s services withdrawing from it altogether.
The Highly Ubiquitous New Modus Operandi of OSLA
Now, we turn to two highly suspicious developments:
1. The Pre-Review Filter:
OSLA has introduced a pre-review process to decide whether or not they will represent a staff member. If they determine that a case has a low probability of success at the UNDT or UNAT, they refuse to represent the staff member.
What does this mean for the staff member? They are left alone, forced to quickly learn and understand on their own the intricate rules and deadlines governing the appeals process. They must draft their own legal submissions, including references to established jurisprudence, and understand the process of remedies; all while most likely battling an isolating and hostile work environment. Many of these staff are appealing reassignment or termination decisions resulting from years of harassment or abuse of authority. Enduring harassment and abuse is already extremely difficult and draining, often leading to mental health issues.
So what happens when the only entity supposedly created by the Secretary-General to support staff in legal battles against the administration simply abandons them? What happens when the staff member, for example, is a GS-4 with absolutely no knowledge or expertise in the legal system? Recently, I witnessed a P-4 staff member rejected by OSLA, forced to navigate the intricate appeals system alone, at great cost to both their mental health and sanity.
Where in the General Assembly resolution is it stated that OSLA will only defend cases that have a high probability of success at the Tribunals? Is this not a newly fabricated system designed to discourage staff from appealing? When OSLA issues a negative assessment, many staff members give up altogether on the idea of appealing because they believe OSLA’s assessment cannot be overturned. But this is far from true. Many staff who have defied OSLA’s logic went on to win at both Tribunals.
The truth is that no one knows for sure how the Tribunals will assess and rule on the validity of the Secretary-General’s discretionary authority. Each case is distinct, bringing its own witnesses and evidence. Many cases have turned around at the last minute during cross-examination, when judges were able to detect the lies and dishonesty of certain witnesses.
We understand perfectly well that OSLA is understaffed, but instead of funding it properly to allow for a reasonable ratio of representation, the Secretary-General turns a blind eye. OSLA, in turn, self-accommodated by introducing this pre-requisite that abandons the very staff they were meant to assist.
2. Agreed Sanctions or Forced Surrenders? OSLA’s Troubling Role
Even more concerning is OSLA’s active role in negotiating on behalf of the Secretary-General an agreed sanction, or what they call a Letter of Undertaking. This is a highly suspicious and unethical practice, in which a staff member is coerced into signing an agreement with management under duress, while the UN pretends it was voluntary.
Let’s hear it directly from the staff: below are some of the chilling extracts of negotiations between different OSLA lawyers and the accused staff regarding an agreed sanction and the kind of pressure applied on them:
“I need your final decision immediately: you either accept the terms or reject them. Be aware that there is pushback within the Administration regarding any negotiated sanction, and if I bring this back to them, discussions will collapse entirely.”
“I must emphasize that this is the final offer. You either take it or leave it. There will be no further adjustments or discussions. This the best that I could get. From what I understand, there was considerable reluctance within the Administration to even allow this agreement.”
“If you do not give me a definitive response by the end of today, this entire negotiation will fall apart. There will be no further chances to amend the terms. This is the Administration’s final stance, and I need your answer now.”
Is this what OSLA was established for? To support administration in negotiating a disciplinary sanction and threatening and coercing staff into signing an unethical Letter of Undertaking?
Now, let’s have a look at what OSLA assists administration in securing. The infamous template of the “Letter of Undertaking”, which essentially crucifies the staff member and ensures that the risk of them going after their perpetrators is eliminated. By negotiating this Machiavellian Letter of Undertaking on behalf of management, OSLA is effectively playing a support role to the administration.
“I agree:
….
Not to take any action to bring proceedings before the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) or United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) or any other body or court in any jurisdiction with respect to any matters arising out of or related in any way whatsoever to the investigatory or disciplinary processes and/or referred to or described in the Allegations of Misconduct.
To keep this Undertaking and the communications regarding this Undertaking confidential.
Not to make any statements, orally or in writing, or release to any third party, any document or statement which in any way refer to actions, inactions, statements or conduct of any kind by me and/or the United Nations in connection with this Undertaking or the underlying matter.
Not to seek or obtain employment with the United Nations or any other organization which is a part of the United Nations System Chief Executive Board.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have voluntarily signed, of my own free will without any duress and after having obtained the advice of legal counsel, this Undertaking on the date indicated below.
Of course, the best part remains the signing off “of my own free will and without any duress.”
This so-called “agreement” is nothing more than a forced surrender. A staff member facing a powerful administration, with no legal support, is left with no real choice but to sign. The very existence of this document contradicts the principles of fairness and justice that the UN claims to uphold. No contract signed under coercion should be considered legitimate, and no legal entity acting in good faith should facilitate such unethical practices.
OSLA was created to defend staff, not to act as an extension of the administration’s disciplinary arm. If OSLA’s main problem is understaffing, then the solution should be adequate funding and resources and not abandoning staff who need their help the most, nor coercing them into unethical agreements.
The UN cannot claim to have a credible internal justice system when its very legal support office filters out cases based on their likelihood of successandpressures staff into waiving their rights.The role of OSLA was never meant to be about minimizing cases against the administration: it was meant to be about justice.
OSLA stands at a crossroads: it can reclaim its original purpose as a defender of staff rights, or it can continue its descent into an arm of the administration, eroding the last shred of faith in the UN’s internal justice system. If the problem is understaffing, then let the solution be more resources instead of a betrayal of the very people OSLA was meant to protect.
OSLA must also remember its original mandate. It was created to assist staff, not to abandon them, not to pressure them, and certainly not to turn against them.
OSLA must recommit to its duty: to stand with staff, to advocate for justice, and to refuse to become a tool of administrative convenience.
In the corridors of United Nations offices worldwide, a large but often invisible workforce sustains the organization’s daily operations. These are the non-staff personnel: consultants, contractors, daily paid, UNVs, interns and other non-staff individuals whose numbers account for nearly half of the UN’s total workforce.
By design, their contracts offer the UN flexibility and cost-efficiency, particularly under the constraints of unpredictable funding. However, this model has come at a severe cost to fairness, labor rights, and organizational integrity.
For many, these contracts do not signify temporary or project-specific employment but rather a precarious, long-term engagement devoid of the protections afforded to staff. They perform roles that mirror those of regular staff, often for years on end, without access to basic benefits like leave, medical care, or even secure housing in hardship duty stations. These disparities challenge the ethics of such employment practices and the sustainability of the UN’s reliance on non-staff personnel.
The lack of duty of care towards non-staff personnel exacerbates these challenges. Non-staff personnel, particularly those working in hardship or emergency duty stations, face heightened risks without access to essential support systems.
Unlike staff members, they are often denied security measures, leave entitlements, or access to medical evacuation during crises. Mental health suffers as a consequence. Many non-staff personnel endure prolonged stress due to job insecurity and the pressures of performing critical roles under precarious conditions. The lack of mental health resources and welfare programs for non-staff workers highlights a serious gap in the UN’s labor practices.
I was recently informed of cases involving consultants in the art sphere, many of whom are young, aspiring artists initially recruited by the UN under formal consultant contracts. However, the UN failed to honor many of these contracts, leaving them unpaid and subsequently pressuring them to continue working for free under the guise of career development. Those who objected often faced blacklisting and now find themselves fighting alone with no access to legal channels to challenge these unfair labor practices. This exploitation has left many non-staff personnel feeling drained and disillusioned.
The UN organizations often acknowledge the risks—both reputational and operational—of misusing non-staff contracts, but shortly afterward, business proceeds as usual. Policies are either inconsistently applied or blatantly circumvented, leaving individuals feeling frustrated and undervalued.
The Drivers Behind Non-Staff Contracts: Flexibility, Cost, and Funding Uncertainty
According to the JIU, three primary factors explain the increasing reliance on non-staff personnel: operational flexibility, cost-efficiency, and the unpredictability of funding. These contracts allow UN agencies to quickly scale their workforce in response to emergencies, shifting needs, and short-term projects. Unlike permanent staff contracts, which require lengthy recruitment and come with extensive benefits, non-staff contracts are administratively simpler and cheaper.
However, this flexibility has created a two-tier workforce. Non-staff personnel often work in roles indistinguishable from those of regular staff but with far fewer rights. In many cases, they are excluded from social protections such as retirement benefits, healthcare, and parental leave. In hardship duty stations, this disparity is even starker. Non-staff personnel lack access to secure housing and medical evacuation, even in crisis situations where staff receive these protections.
Organizations also cite funding volatility as a reason for their dependence on non-staff personnel. Many UN agencies rely heavily on extrabudgetary funding, which donors earmark for specific projects. This funding model discourages long-term staffing commitments, leading to the proliferation of temporary contracts. As a result, non-staff personnel have become an essential yet vulnerable segment of the UN workforce.
The Consequences of Misuse: High Turnover, Poor Morale, and Legal Risks
The overuse and misuse of non-staff contracts carry significant risks for the UN. High turnover rates, resulting from job insecurity and inadequate benefits, undermine institutional knowledge and organizational effectiveness. Non-staff personnel often feel demoralized, knowing that their contributions are undervalued despite their central role in program delivery.
Moreover, the UN exposes itself to potential legal liabilities by failing to adhere to international labor standards. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has emphasized that any work arrangement that meets the criteria of an employment relationship should be governed by staff contracts. Yet, many UN agencies continue to operate in a legal grey area, using non-staff personnel to perform continuous, core functions without regularizing their status.
Recent inspections have highlighted cases where non-staff personnel were subjected to poor contract management, including late payments and vague terms of reference. These issues exacerbate tensions within the workforce and fuel complaints to oversight bodies such as the Ombudsman and internal justice mechanisms.
The Illusion of Opportunity
For many, the path to a UN career begins with a consultancy contract, seen as a crucial first step towards permanent employment. Yet, this path often turns into a trap, a spiral that engulfs them in cycles of unpaid labor and exploitation. Instead of opportunity, these contracts become barriers, leaving individuals disillusioned and without legal recourse.
The fault does not lie with those who enter through this door but with the system that constructed it. The UN must confront and dismantle these harmful practices if it hopes to uphold the principles of fairness and human dignity it espouses.
Until then, this so-called door to opportunity will remain the wrong door for too many.
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.
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.
“I am not feeling better, not at all. I have high blood pressure and panic attacks, one happened after I saw your message yesterday. I am not sure whether you are aware, but I have long-standing [depression], and recently my doctor doubled my medication because of the nervous breakdown. Nevertheless, even being on sick leave, I worked all the previous week, and today the whole working day…”
In a truly inclusive workplace, this email alone should have triggered a profound sense of duty of care from the staff member’s supervisor. It should have prompted the provision of every possible accommodation to support her recovery. Instead, what the UN did is unforgivable.
Case 1: Aggravating Depression to Disability
A former Human Resources Manager with UNICEF at the P-4 level in Nairobi, Kenya, experienced anxiety, panic attacks, and high blood pressure following a meeting with her supervisor. She was placed on certified sick leave. However, during her leave, her supervisor demanded she complete her performance evaluation report (PER) with a one-day deadline. Despite notifying her supervisor of her poor health, she returned to work, where another meeting caused a nervous breakdown. Her doctor concluded that work-related stress had severely exacerbated her condition.
Seeking justice, she filed a claim with the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for compensation for service-incurred illness. Rather than acknowledging its duty of care, the UN, including the ABCC, actively opposed her claim, employing every tactic to undermine it.
Although the UN claims to set exemplary standards for employers, it ignored its own duty to protect its staff’s well-being. Despite being aware of her mental health condition, the organization delayed her ABCC claim under Appendix D for 22 months. This inaction further worsened her mental health.
In the judgment Gusarova v. Secretary-General UNDT/2023/046, the Tribunal highlighted this delay, stating:
“In sum, it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment… [T]he ABCC unduly delayed the consideration of the Applicant’s claim for compensation, notwithstanding that the delay could aggravate the moral harm suffered.”
The Tribunal further emphasized:
“Duty of care requires the employer to intervene promptly also to assess if a claim may be accepted or not within Appendix D, notably when this delay may impact on the health of the staff member, aggravating their psychological harm.”
Gusarova’ s struggle to receive acknowledgment of her condition and fair treatment underscores the UN’s disregard for mental health as a legitimate aspect of workplace inclusion.
Inclusion or Illusion? Unpacking the UN’s Diversity Dilemma
The United Nations champions the ideals of diversity and inclusion, presenting itself as a bastion of equity and empathy. Yet, beneath this polished narrative lies a troubling hypocrisy: the failure to embrace and support neurodivergent staff members who face unique challenges due to their mental health or neurological conditions.
When people think of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the conversation often defaults to visible identifiers like race, religion, or gender. While these are critical, an equally important yet often overlooked component of DEI is discrimination based on neurodivergence, mental health, and personality traits.
These hidden forms of exclusion carry profound human costs. This systemic failure is not abstract; it has real human costs. In addition to the Gusarova case, two more stories illustrate the UN’s failure to uphold its own ideals of inclusion
Case 2: Surviving Brain Tumors, Facing Hostility
A former UNHCR G5 national staff underwent two brain surgeries to remove a life-threatening tumor. After returning to work, he exhibited emotional and behavioral changes, including mood swings—understandable given his ordeal. Instead of supporting him, the organization investigated him, worsening his mental health status, and ultimately terminated him. In what inclusive organization, let alone one like the UN, is this allowed?
The case revolved around whether the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) at UNHCR had a duty to investigate the medical context of his behavior. In Judgment UNDT/2022/132 Applicant v. SG of the UN, the Tribunal documented his struggles:
“[The Applicant] was diagnosed with a serious brain tumor in March 2018 and underwent two brain surgeries on 12 March 2018 and 9 April 2018. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and adjustment disorder, with symptoms including mood swings, irritation, and problematic control of anger. In particular, according to the psychiatric note, the Applicant was referred for further treatment in the summer of 2018 due to “mood swings, irritation and problematic control of anger.
The psychiatric note on record suggests that the Applicant’s medical condition could have caused problems in social or work settings including aggression and loss of social inhibition “before and during the operation” due to the physical and psychological trauma he went through and that “[t]he operation itself might also have some psychological consequences”.
Despite clear evidence that his medical condition caused behavioral challenges, the UN sanctioned him for those very symptoms, including his post-brain surgery PTSD. In his appeal, the staff member questioned the UN’s treatment of him in a poignant statement:
“[I]t really saddens me at this point and shows how some colleagues may also fail to act inclusive towards a colleague who had suffered a deadly brain disease and survived. This seems to form a big basis of hypocrisy for some colleagues to me. While they claim to work for people of concern, they tend to forget to include the ones at home for whatever motives they might have. … What would a person do when they start work only 8 months after they were operated in their brain two times? Of course, this person would have ventilations, mood swings, frustrations of a kind, etc. Yet, these were not targeting to anyone specifically….”
I’ve been recovering from a brain surgery that I had two times in 2018. And what I’m doing is trying to recover, focus on myself. And I do not think that I have been using curse words … Because I was going through a recovery process, and that’s why I am not recalling if I have used any cursing words, or I increased my voice at all … In fact, I was the silent – I mean, what I wanted to say, that I was very silent, I was very introverted, I was putting my music headset, and I’m sitting in front of my desk and trying to do my work. That’s why I don’t think that I’ve used any cursing words or increased my voice. “
The Tribunal condemned the UN’s failure, stating:
“the failure to consider the Applicant’s mental health issues throughout the investigation and disciplinary proceedings seems to reveal a dereliction of the duty of care towards the Applicant as a staff member of the Organization, because his mental health condition was not properly considered before deciding on the termination of his service as the sanction to be applied to him.”
Recalling Judgment Ouriques 2017-UNAT-745 and Judge Halfeld’s Dissenting Opinion, para. 6) the Judge reminded everyone that
“the Organization has a duty of care towards its staff members. This duty of care required the Administration … to inquire further into the staff member’s mental health once it was on notice of its possible relevance prior to concluding the disciplinary investigation and to making a final determination vis-a-vis the staff members’ disciplinary sanction. It is not good practice to separate a staff member suffering from a mental health condition without first fully discharging its duty of care”
Although he won the appeal, the staff member was never reinstated.
Case 3: Quiet Quashed: How the UN Weaponized Introversion Against a High Performer
An introverted but high-performing staff member at UNHQ faced relentless harassment because her supervisor deemed her reserved nature a flaw. Despite consistent excellence in her performance evaluations, her supervisor pressured her to change her personality, ultimately including disparaging comments about her “introverted character” in her appraisal.
This psychological attack escalated into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and she is now pursuing disability benefits due to permanent mental health impairment.
Since when, we ask, are supervisors allowed to weaponize introversion or neurodivergent traits to downgrade performance evaluations? Is this what inclusion and diversity in the UN are truly about?
Redefining Inclusion: Why Neurodivergence Deserves a Seat at the Table
These cases reveal an organizational culture where diversity is celebrated only when convenient. The UN’s Strategy on Mental Health promises a supportive environment for staff, yet it remains an empty gesture for many. How can an organization profess to support mental health when staff who exhibit neurodivergent traits or struggle with mental health challenges are sidelined, harassed, or punished?
Neurodivergence encompasses a broad spectrum of neurological differences, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. These are not “deficiencies” or “flaws” but rather variations in how individuals perceive, process, and interact with the world. Neurodivergent individuals bring unique perspectives, innovative problem-solving abilities, and critical skills that can enhance any workplace. Respecting neurodivergence means fostering an environment where differences are not just tolerated but celebrated as essential to collective success.
Supervisors and colleagues alike must begin to understand that staff members have the right to say, “I’m not feeling well,” or, “I don’t feel comfortable answering this question,” without fear of judgment or retaliation. Staff should feel safe expressing vulnerability, recognizing that needing support is not a failure—it’s an essential aspect of being human. Anxiety attacks, for example, are not signs of weak leadership; they are signals that an individual is overwhelmed and needs assistance.
The UN and its leadership, including the Secretary-General, have repeatedly pledged to provide this support. It is time to honor those commitments in practice, not just in policy. Supervisors must be trained to respond to such moments with empathy and understanding, creating a workplace culture where staff feel empowered to seek help without the stigma of being perceived as inadequate.
If the UN truly seeks to embody its principles of inclusion and equity, it must do better. It must move beyond empty rhetoric and create tangible, lasting change in how it addresses neurodivergence and mental health challenges in the workplace.
Your Story Matters: Let’s Redefine Inclusion Together
These stories matter because they reflect a deeper systemic issue. If you’ve experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. Let’s demand a workplace that respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible
These stories matter because they reveal a deeper systemic issue that affects not just individuals but the very integrity of the workplace. If you have experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. By sharing your story, you can help shed light on the hidden challenges faced by so many and push for meaningful change.
Let’s come together to demand a workplace that truly respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible. Together, we can advocate for a more inclusive and compassionate environment that honors the UN’s commitment to equity and humanity.
Today, I am sharing a deeply concerning letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). The letter highlights systemic failures and racial discrimination exposed in two recent judgments (BANGAMBILA v. SG and KISUMIRO v. SG), involving unethical conduct by a senior OIOS investigator and the inaction of their supervisors.
These judgments reveal:
The unjust termination of two African national staff members based on flawed investigations.
Gross incompetence and potential conscious bias by OIOS leadership.
The failure of the UN’s internal justice system to protect underprivileged staff, leaving them unsupported against systemic misconduct.
Key examples include:
The Bangambila Case: A single mother lost her livelihood due to a lack of basic understanding by the investigator, who failed to grasp the definition of “spouse.” The Tribunal described this as “a clear failure of due diligence at almost every level.”
The Kisumiro Case: A construction worker, ethical and truthful, was exploited because of his limited legal knowledge. OIOS disregarded his straightforward defense, and OSLA refused to represent him.
Only thanks to the courageous and relentless efforts of Sètondji Roland Adjovi and Anthony Wilson, who pursued these cases with unmatched determination, were the affected staff members saved. Their advocacy not only led to groundbreaking decisions to reinstate these individuals but also set a precedent for the UN system to rectify its failures. Without their intervention, these outcomes would not have been possible.
I encourage you to read the letter in full to understand the extent of the failures against these national staff from Congo and the systemic injustice they endured. Share it widely to demand independent investigations, transparency, and accountability within the UN system. Together, we can amplify their voices and call for meaningful reform.
Why does the United Nations repeatedly fail to address the firmly entrenched issues of racism and harassment within its own ranks?
Every year, the Ombudsman’s Office sounds the alarm, highlighting systemic failures in the workplace and devastating issues such as racism and harassment in the workplace. Every year, the Secretary-General presents these damning findings to the General Assembly.
And every year, member states respond with the same meaningless ritual: they “take note” of the report.
What does it take to break this cycle of inaction? And what does this cycle of repetition reveal about the United Nations’ internal accountability mechanisms?
Over four years, these reports have consistently highlighted two systemic issues:
Racism: Persistent, widespread, and damaging to organizational culture and staff well-being.
Systemic Upward Harassment: Particularly targeting senior female leaders, exacerbated by gender discrimination and patriarchal workplace norms.
Yet, despite repeated observations, no significant actions have been taken. In response to this ongoing inaction, on 22 November 2024, the Chair of the Sixth Committee (Legal) sent a letter to the Chair of the Fifth Committee, underscoring the importance of addressing the persistent issues raised in reports submitted by the Secretary-General, specifically the activities of the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (A/79/156).
Digging Into the Reports:A Closer Look at the Evidence
To understand the scale of this failure, we examine the Secretary-General’s reports from 2020 to 2024. Each year, the Ombudsman documented systemic racism and harassment, particularly against senior female leaders. Each year, the same issues resurfaced, unresolved.
“As the Organization moves towards the goal of gender parity, one negative effect is an increase in upward professional harassment, or mobbing directed at female managers at senior and other levels. A new female manager who is the subject of mobbing does not always find the support needed from senior management… She may have to build a network while negative information about her is being disseminated by those disgruntled at her appointment…she has to address gender discrimination in addition to mobbing.”
On racism, the Secretary-General reaffirmed in a letter that racism “violated the Charter and debased the core values of its community”.
Despite these critical issues being identified, no systemic changes were implemented, and these problems would resurface in future reports.
The 2021 report noted staff skepticism about the UN’s ability to address racism.
“The degree of awareness of racism in the workplace spans a wide range, from those who believe it does not exist to those who have experienced it and are highly sceptical as to whether it will ever be addressed in a meaningful way. Continuous learning and education on racism will be necessary to embed an anti-racist awareness and culture in the Organization.”
The persistence of skepticism among staff highlights the UN’s failure to address racism meaningfully, despite acknowledging its presence.
The Ombudsman 2022 report highlighted how multiple forms of discrimination—gender, race, age, and ableism—intersected to harm staff, particularly women in leadership. Despite a flexible regulatory framework, patriarchal workplace cultures rendered reforms ineffective.
“Racial discrimination may manifest itself in different, often subtle ways, from microaggressions to overt racism. Often, several elements intersect, for instance gender and racial discrimination, perceived age discrimination, and ableism… Even when the regulatory framework might allow for flexibility, it was often not applied by managers and a patriarchal workplace culture persisted.”
“Women, especially those appointed to senior positions, reported that they seemed to be measured by different standards compared with their male counterparts. Several women leaders contacted the Office about the harassment they experienced, ranging from microaggressions to overt aggression.”
2022 marked yet another year of the same issues being observed, with systemic discrimination entrenched and no clear evidence of concrete interventions or changes.
Staff reported feeling unseen and devalued. Victims of racism sacrificed their mental and physical health to combat systemic issues.
The 2023 Ombudsman report noted:
“Many United Nations staff feel marginalized, unseen, and not valued. Daily interactions and treatment of personnel are perceived to be misaligned with the aspirational frameworks of the Organization, with a negative impact on organizational culture. Victims of racism have engaged in addressing racism to the detriment of their health.”
Despite the creation of an Anti-Racism Team, the lack of tangible outcomes reflected a continued failure to address the root causes of these issues.
2024 (A/79/156): The Failure of Formal Complaints to Address Racism
Staff continued to report incidents of racism and bias, and the formal complaints process proved inadequate.
Under Addressing Racial Bias and Discrimination, the 2024 report revealed that racism continued to persist within the organization, despite increased efforts to address it. While more employees have come forward to report incidents, the reliance on formal complaints channels has proven largely ineffective in resolving the issue. The report underscored that addressing bias requires more than formal processes; it necessitates an environment where staff feel safe to raise concerns and challenge discrimination without fear of retaliation. Until such an environment exists, racism will remain a deeply entrenched issue.
The systemic issues identified in the 2020 report were still unresolved four years later.
Why Is the UN Losing the Battle Against Racism and Harassment?
Over four years, the Ombudsman’s reports have exposed a damning reality: a workplace entrenched in systemic racism and harassment. And yet, nothing changes. The question is not whether the issues are clear—they are—but why the United Nations continues to ignore them. The answers are as alarming as the failures themselves:
1. The Secretary-General’s Missed Opportunities
The SG has the authority to act decisively, implementing reforms, holding senior leaders accountable, strengthen the Ombudsman’s mandate, and push member states to prioritize internal justice.
However, the SG’s failure to act decisively has perpetuated systemic dysfunction, damaged staff morale, and undermined trust in the UN’s commitment to its values.
Year after year, the SG chooses not to act. Is it fear of disrupting internal power structures? Apathy? Or a belief that these issues are not worth prioritizing?
2. Member States Perpetuating Inertia
Member states also bear significant responsibility for this inertia. Despite funding the Ombudsman’s Office through assessed contributions, they refuse to hold the UN accountable for acting on its findings. Instead, they prioritize budgetary efficiency and avoid politically sensitive discussions about harassment and racism.
Why fund a mechanism that reveals systemic failures if you have no intention of fixing them? By failing to act, member states perpetuate the UN’s inefficiency and undermine its credibility. It becomes a bureaucratic exercise that neither protects staff nor aligns with the organization’s stated values.
3. Bureaucracy as a Shield
The UN’s deeply ingrained bureaucracy enables inaction. Critical findings are buried in processes and paperwork, allowing systemic problems to persist unchecked. Reports are “taken note of”—and promptly ignored.
Burnout and Brain Drain: The Cost of Inaction
The human cost is immense. Talented senior women and minority staff leave in frustration, their careers derailed by harassment and discrimination. Victims of racism suffer in silence or jeopardize their health fighting an unyielding system. Each year of inaction chips away at the UN’s credibility as an institution meant to uphold justice and equality.
The UN cannot keep ignoring these issues without losing whatever credibility it has left. If the Ombudsman’s reports are worth the paper they’re written on, they must lead to real change. Member states need to stop playing bureaucratic hide-and-seek, and the Secretary-General must decide whether leadership is a title or a responsibility.
But let’s be honest—next year, the same report will be submitted, and once again, it will be ‘noted.’
Because if there’s one thing the UN excels at, it’s inaction perfected to an art form. At this rate, we’ll be ‘taking note’ of the same issues for another decade.
A recent UNDT judgment Hosali vs Secretary general of the United Nations UNDT/2024/017exposes 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.
Trigger Warning: This content discusses sensitive topics, including sexual harassment, grooming, pedophilia, and abuse of authority. Reader discretion is advised
A Judgment Detached from Reality
On 11 November 2024, the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) issued a final judgment in the case of Sandi Arnold vs. the Secretary-General of the United Nations Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1477. That judgment is itself the final blow in the face of justice within the UN and highlights the systemic corruption of senior officials at UNHQ. The judgment, astonishingly, has little connection to the reality it purportedly addresses because by the time it was issued, Sandi Arnold had already been dismissed by the UN the previous year. How can this be?
Arnold, a long-term UN staff member, was implicated in a series of deeply troubling incidents during her tenure, yet senior officials, including an Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) at UNHQ, actively shielded her from accountability. The allegations against her ranged from sexual harassment to abuse of authority, and even extended to grooming and pedophilia. Yes, you read that correctly.
A Series of Troubling Allegations
Prior to joining UNMIK, Arnold served as UNRWA Deputy Director of Operations in Syria, where the first allegations of sexual harassment against her emerged. According to former UNRWA sources, Arnold organized informal outings, including taking local female staff members to a hairdresser on Saturdays for what appeared to be casual social gatherings. However, these events reportedly escalated into instances where Arnold made sexually suggestive remarks and allusions. Distressed by her behavior, the female staff lodged internal complaints. Arnold was quietly asked to leave Syria immediately.
She was subsequently reassigned to UNHQ in New York, and by February 2017, she had secured the role of Chief of Mission Support (CMS) at the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) at the D-1 level position.
The allegations against Arnold began surfacing in 2019 when the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) received multiple reports of her misconduct. Among the most disturbing incidents was the gifting of sex toys to female colleagues. According to the judgment, Arnold purchased a sex toy during a trip to New York and later gifted it to a subordinate. The judgment noted that this act “transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of her subordinate” and carried the potential to “negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization”.
Over the following year, 15 additional complaints were filed, painting a deeply troubling picture of her behavior. Arnold frequently referred to colleagues using offensive nicknames based on physical characteristics or national origins, such as “Choo Choo”and “Ju Ju Eyes.”The judgment highlighted that this practice “created a significant risk of dividing staff on national origin” and was deemed patently inappropriate in a multicultural workplace.
Her bullying tactics further compounded the harm. In one incident detailed in the judgment, Arnold shouted at a subordinate during a printing task, hurling expletives and saying,
“Will you f…ing print the policy itself?” When dissatisfied with the result, she escalated to throwing the document at the staff member and shouting repeatedly: “F….you, f*** off, go f*** yourself.”
This incident, corroborated by multiple witnesses, left the subordinate deeply humiliated and caused significant emotional distress.
One particularly distressing account revealed that Arnold’s repeated bullying led a staff member to contemplate suicide. The judgment noted that her behavior “violated the minimum level of civility expected in the workplace” and had a devastating emotional toll on her victims . The CMS was undeniably an abusive leader whose actions caused significant harm to her colleagues, leaving many emotionally devastated and others nearly broken beyond repair.
A System That Shields the Powerful
Arnold was placed on administrative leave with full pay in January 2022 while OIOS finalized its investigation. When OIOS finalized their investigation which took almost two years *while the CMs was on full pay- great use of member states funds again btw- they sent the report to OHR for action. Incredibly, rather than addressing the gravity of these allegations with decisive action, the UN’s disciplinary response was appallingly lenient.
The United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) both reviewed the case. The UNDT confirmed that the CMS’s actions constituted misconduct. The judgments emphasized the failure to maintain the dignity of staff and the damage inflicted on the UN’s image. As the UNDT noted: “The CMS’s actions violated the standards expected of a senior leader, crossing professional and personal boundaries, and creating a hostile work environment.”
The UNAT upheld these findings, dismissing the CMS’s appeal and affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary measures. Yet, rather than terminating her employment, the disciplinary measures imposed consisted of a written censure (the lowest disciplinary measure under Chapter |X of the rules) and an administrative measure of a mandatory managerial coaching for one year.
The Role of Senior Officials: Protecting the Perpetrator
This leniency was not accidental.
According to multiple sources, a high-ranking ASG at UNHQ intervened on Arnold’s behalf, ensuring the disciplinary measures were minimal and shielding her from the full consequences of her actions.
Emboldened by this interference, Arnold not only avoided severe repercussions but also appealed the disciplinary measure to the UNDT, launching a determined fight to clear her name.
Meanwhile, her victims were left terrorized and paralyzed, fearing further retaliation at every turn. Rather than seeking to restore integrity and foster a safe, supportive environment in UNMIK, the ASG’s actions prioritized protecting the interests of one individual: Sandi Arnold.
This interference not only undermined the credibility of the UN’s disciplinary and accountability system but also sent a chilling message to victims of abuse within the organization: their suffering is secondary to the careers of those in power.
Can anyone truly imagine what it feels like to be in the shoes of these victims? What values would they believe in after enduring this nightmare?
And so, with this deal sealed, Arnold’s suspension was lifted, and she was incredibly allowed to return to work on 3 October 2022.
The emotional toll on her victims was nothing short of catastrophic. Three staff members reportedly considered suicide, while several others required ongoing treatment to cope with the trauma inflicted under her leadership. Feeling abandoned and unprotected, and fearing further retaliation, many of her victims made the decision to leave the mission altogether. The repercussions extended far beyond the workplace, impacting their families as well. The toxic environment fostered by Arnold’s actions, combined with the UN’s failure to respond effectively, compounded the distress and left a lasting scar on the personal lives of those affected.
Unspoken Crimes? Allegations of Grooming and Pedophilia?
What happened next is shockingly absent from both the UNDT/UNAT judgments and any subsequent public decisions.
Allegations of grooming and pedophilia surfaced. Reports emerged that Arnold had allegedly groomed the children of staff members and taken them on private trips under highly suspicious circumstances, raising serious concerns about her conduct. Despite these numerous allegations and staff members fleeing the mission, Arnold was allowed to return to work.
She continued in her role for almost a year and a half, wreaking havoc and causing a severe emotional toll on her victims. Then, in November 2023, she was suddenly dismissed.
The Office of Human Resources (OHR) did not provide any explanation, and there is no official document detailing the reasons for her termination.
Those chilling allegations beg the question: how could the UN’s senior management at UNHQ allow such behavior to continue unchecked? How could they permit such a CMS to return to work, further exacerbating the harm to staff and their families?
By reinstating Arnold despite these unresolved allegations, the UN effectively prioritized the interests of an ASG—who was reportedly a friend of Arnold—and their own bureaucratic agendas over the safety and well-being of its staff. This decision, made under the guise of procedural fairness, trampled on the basic principles of accountability and justice. The silence and inaction of senior officials at UNHQ is as damning as the misconduct itself.
The Scars of Injustice on Victims
Arnold’s final dismissal in October 2023, after years of reports and investigations, underscores the UN’s systemic failure to act decisively against misconduct. This failure is starkly contrasted by the profound emotional toll and the devastating impact on the mental health of staff members, many of whom required ongoing treatment or chose to leave UNMIK entirely.
Such outcomes stand in sharp contradiction to the Secretary-General’s much-publicized system-wide strategy on mental health, which claims to prioritize the well-being of UN personnel. How can this strategy hold any credibility when the actions—and inactions—of senior management so blatantly undermine its very purpose?
A Corrupt and Broken Disciplinary Process
This case is emblematic of a critical, yet deliberately obscured, problem within the UN’s investigative and disciplinary processes.
Senior officials’ interference in disciplinary matters undermines the organization’s credibility, leaving victims without justice while emboldening perpetrators.
The OIOS investigation, which dragged on for over two years, highlights the inefficiencies of a system that prioritizes procedural delays over meaningful and substantive outcomes. The UN must confront the systemic failures exposed by this case and hold accountable the senior officials who failed all these victims.
Unfortunately, a culture that tolerates such egregious misconduct and allows it to persist unchallenged will only serve to embolden further perpetrators, perpetuating harm and eroding trust in the organization.
As we approach the end of the year, I want to take a moment to reflect on something that has shaped my work and so many of yours: Certioraris. ✨ This month marks the two-year anniversary since its establishment—two years of supporting, guiding, and amplifying the voices of those who needed it most.
Over these years, I’ve spoken with hundreds of you—UN staff, humanitarian workers, and professionals navigating systems that often lack transparency, fairness, and accountability. Yet, I realize I’ve never taken the time to fully share the story of Certioraris: how it began, what it stands for, and the mission behind its name. 🖊️
What binds us together are the similar stories we share and our enduring belief in the founding principles of the UN Charter. Beyond that, we are united by our suffering—whether it was imposed on us, the result of an unjust supervisor’s actions, or the consequence of a system that shields itself instead of those it is meant to serve. We share so much, but above all, we are united by a single goal: to restore justice and dignity. ⚖️
Certioraris started as one act, but it has grown into something much larger—a collective platform for truth, accountability, and reform. 🕊️ What makes it truly unique is its complete independence: Certioraris does not rely on external funding, allowing it to operate without bias or influence. This independence ensures credibility and allows it to serve those who need it most with integrity and transparency.
If you’ve ever wondered how it began or what drives this mission, I invite you to read below. It’s something a little different, for a change.
Certioraris exists because of you—your stories, your courage, and our shared belief in justice. 🌍⚖️ The work continues, and it’s ours to carry.
When I first founded my blog, I spent a great deal of time thinking about what to call it. I wanted a name that would encapsulate the essence of justice, fairness, and the need to uncover the truth. My personal experience with the United Nations’ administration of justice system guided me to a word that resonated deeply: “certiorari.” But what does certiorari actually mean, and why did I choose it?
“Certiorari: What’s in a Name?
The term “certiorari” originates from Latin, meaning “to be made more certain” or “to be informed.” Historically, it referred to a type of writ developed within the English legal system. In English common law, certiorari was a supervisory writ issued by a superior court, such as the King’s Bench, to an inferior court or tribunal. This writ commanded the lower court to send the records of a particular case for review, ensuring that justice was properly administered and that the lower courts operated within their jurisdiction.
The use of certiorari dates back to at least the 13th century, serving as a royal demand for information and a means to move cases from local courts to the King’s courts. By transferring cases to the King’s courts, the system provided a mechanism to correct local biases, standardize rulings, and reinforce accountability across the justice system. This process was integral in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that decisions were made with fairness and transparency. In practice, certiorari allows a higher judicial body to take a closer look at a case, correcting any errors or injustices that might have occurred and ensuring decisions are grounded in fairness.
For example, in the United States, certiorari is most prominently used by the Supreme Court to review cases from lower courts, often focusing on issues of national importance or cases with conflicting lower court decisions. By contrast, in countries with less developed judicial review systems or those where access to justice is limited, the absence of certiorari-like mechanisms often highlights systemic inequalities. In these regions, individuals face significant barriers to challenging unjust rulings or accessing all relevant information needed to ensure a fair trial.
The principle of certiorari or being “more fully informed” becomes not just a legal right but a fundamental necessity for upholding justice in environments where transparency and accountability are often lacking.
From a Single Act to Many Voices for Justice
My choice to name the website Certioraris stems from this powerful principle. The pluralized form, “Certioraris,” reflects my belief that the right to be more fully informed and the pursuit of justice is not limited to a single individual or case. It is a collective need—one that resonates with thousands of United Nations staff and others working in the humanitarian aid and development sectors. These individuals often find themselves navigating complex, opaque systems that lack accountability and transparency.
Through my own journey in challenging corruption, retaliation, and the systemic flaws within the UN’s administration of justice, I saw firsthand how difficult it is to fight for one’s rights in the face of institutional resistance.
Certioraris in Action: Amplifying Truth, Driving Reform
Certioraris is a space where I aim to provide clarity, guidance, and support to others facing similar battles. Many staff members lack trust in their internal investigative mechanisms, perceiving them as protective of the institution rather than the victims, and not genuinely committed to establishing justice.
Through Certioraris, I bring to the public sphere what the General Assembly intended by mandating the publication of these judgments. By widely disseminating these issues, I aim to foster reform and leverage change to end such practices. The General Assembly emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in the internal justice system, as reflected in Resolution 63/253, which underscores the need for an efficient and effective system of administration of justice in the United Nations.
Ironically, in doing so, Certioraris fulfills a role the UN itself was supposed to undertake when it introduced the internal justice system in 2009. The system was intended to ensure that tribunal judgments would serve as best practices, aligning UN policies with the spirit of the rulings to drive incremental reform from within.
However, no such reforms have materialized. Instead, issues like sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and retaliation have become rampant, while bodies such as the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the Inspector General’s Office (IGO), the Ethics Office, and the Ombudsman have been privatized by the Secretary-General’s office to serve its defense rather than uphold justice. Certioraris represents a vital resource for those seeking justice, offering tangible support and guidance to navigate the complexities of their battles.
Bridging the Gaps in UN Justice
For UN staff, as well as employees of other international organizations, the principles of certiorari hold special meaning. Many face retaliation, harassment, and discrimination without adequate recourse. The internal justice systems of these organizations are often skewed against the very individuals they are meant to protect.
Certioraris is dedicated to helping these individuals understand their rights, navigate the system, and find strength in shared experiences. This mission aligns with the original meaning of certiorari—to provide a higher level of understanding and ensure that decisions affecting personal and professional lives are made with fairness and transparency.
In the context of the UN, this principle addresses critical gaps in the internal justice system by advocating for transparency and accountability. By highlighting and disseminating tribunal judgments, Certioraris exposes systemic flaws and pressures the organization to align its policies with the spirit of these rulings, fostering the incremental reform that the system was originally intended to achieve. By advocating for this principle, Certioraris becomes a tool for empowerment and a reminder that no one should have to fight these battles alone.
Justice Without Influence: The Power of Independence
What sets Certioraris apart is its complete independence. Unlike many initiatives, it does not rely on external funding. This independence allows it to operate without bias or influence, ensuring that the assistance provided is guided solely by the needs of those seeking support. Importantly, the work is done on a pro bono basis, meaning that staff who reach out to Certioraris for guidance and support can do so without fear of financial burden.
Having worked within the United Nations for twenty years, I have witnessed firsthand how funding systems are often exploited to advance institutional or foreign narratives and suppress dissenting voices. Financial resources are frequently weaponized to reinforce external policies, manipulate recruitment processes, and shape outcomes to serve the interests of those in power, and sometimes even external entities or governments. This creates an environment where funding becomes a tool of control rather than a mechanism to support genuine reform or justice.
This steadfast commitment to independence and accessibility embodies the ethos of Certioraris: to serve those in need with integrity and dedication. While Certioraris does not accept external funding, it actively welcomes opportunities for collaboration and volunteerism. One of its core missions is to inspire and shape the critical minds of young volunteers in the legal, communications, and humanitarian fields. By engaging with Certioraris, these volunteers gain a deeper understanding of what it means to serve humanity with dignity and integrity, preparing them to embark on their professional journeys with a strong ethical foundation.
The Journey We Share as UN Staff Inspired Certioraris
Having worked for 20 years in the UN, I still firmly believe in its founding principles. Unlike many others, my journey began from the bottom up, giving me firsthand insight into what national and locally recruited staff endure, including the discrimination often faced by these categories. I had to sacrifice a great deal on both a personal and professional level to advance my career, balancing the demands of being a mother and a professional in a system that often overlooks the unique challenges faced by women. This journey has given me a profound appreciation for the challenges faced by staff across all levels and categories. Over time, I transitioned to being an international professional civil servant, this long journey in diverse duty stations equipped me with a 360-degree perspective to understand and address problems from all angles. This experience allows me to respect and advocate for staff across all categories and nationalities.
However, until the UN corrects its course and addresses these serious justice flaws, I will continue to advocate for the voices of the silenced—those who have been retaliated against, or anyone who continues to suffer injustice in a system that insulates itself from accountability. The privileges and immunities granted to the UN were intended to better serve the world, not to be exploited as a means of evading accountability when it suits.
As you explore Certioraris, I invite you to think about the principle of being “more fully informed” and how it applies to your own journey. Whether you are seeking justice, advocating for fairness, or simply trying to navigate a complex system, Certioraris is here to support you.
This week, I continue my mission to expose the endemic issue of sexual harassment within the United Nations system. Once again, UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, finds itself under the spotlight.
The sexual predator, a senior staff member holding the position of Deputy Representative of UNHCR Operations in Niger at the P5 level, was the second-highest-ranking official in the country office. This article is based on the recent judgment, Kourouma v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/107), issued on December 6, 2024. The original version of the judgment is in French, but I am writing this article in English to reach a wider audience.
Let’s hear it directly from the testimonies of the three survivors.
“Just Let’s Wiggle a Little Bit”: A Traumatic Experience
MW – Senior Programme Monitoring Officer at UNHCR Libya, based in Tunis, Tunisia.
MW, a senior staff member based in Tunisia, recounted an incident during her mission to Niger in 2018. Her testimony revealed how, on the last day of her mission, the perpetrator invited her to his office under professional pretenses. As they bid farewell, he forcibly hugged her, attempted to kiss her on the mouth, and when she turned her head away, kissed her cheek instead. MW recounted how he said in French,
“Ah, tu ne veux pas être embrassée ?” or “Tu aimes pas ça ?” (“Oh, you don’t want to be kissed?” or “You don’t like that?”),
and then added in English,
“Just let’s wiggle a little bit”
as he pressed his body against hers and rubbed his genitals against her lower abdomen. She left the office immediately, deeply shocked and horrified by the experience.
JL, an associate staff member who joined UNHCR Niger in September 2019, described an unsettling incident on December 2, 2021. At the time, JL and the perpetrator had minimal contact due to their lack of professional overlap. On that day, as JL was sitting with a colleague after lunch, the perpetrator entered the room unexpectedly and placed his hand on JL’s shoulder, ostensibly to massage her.
When JL stood to fetch water, she felt the perpetrator’s gaze fixed inappropriately on her chest. Upon returning, he caressed her hand and ring, inquiring whether it was an engagement ring or a wedding band. Feeling uncomfortable and caught off guard, JL answered ambiguously. He then shifted the conversation to his own ring before JL left the room, deeply uneasy.
“I felt trapped and deeply uncomfortable, yet I didn’t know how to react given his seniority. Why was he doing this? We didn’t have any kind of relationship, and it was during the pandemic when personal contact was discouraged. I couldn’t understand his fixation with my ring; it felt invasive and deeply inappropriate.”
“La Petite”: Harassment Escalates Into Retaliation
GR1, an Associate External Relations Officer in Niger, endured persistent and invasive harassment from the perpetrator throughout her tenure. His behavior escalated over time, crossing professional boundaries and becoming increasingly inappropriate.
The perpetrator frequently hugged GR1, with these embraces lasting too long and bringing her chest close to his. He would touch her back, hair, or even her buttocks, behaviors she described as inappropriate and “beyond simple greetings.”
Each time he saw her—whether in the hallway or her office—he would touch her or caress her in ways that were uncomfortable and unwelcome. She attempted to ask him to stop but was ignored.
The perpetrator made phone calls to GR1 outside of work hours, which were often unrelated to professional matters. He attempted to invite her out, but she declined, explaining that she was not interested and had a young baby she was nursing.
When GR1 resisted his advances, the perpetrator retaliated by criticizing her job performance and casting doubts on her career prospects. His abuse of authority created an environment where GR1 felt compelled to avoid him, sometimes even hesitating to come to work.
GR1 recounted how the perpetrator avoided using her name and instead referred to her dismissively as “la petite” (the little one), a term she found inappropriate in a professional setting.
“Every time he hugged me, it felt like more than a greeting—it was intimate, sexual, and deeply unsettling. He touched me as one might touch a lover, sometimes even in the presence of others. It made me feel powerless and degraded. I began to avoid him at all costs, sometimes even dreading going to work. He abused his authority, and I couldn’t bring myself to report him. When I resisted his advances, he turned on me, questioning my competence and sabotaging my career prospects.”
Systemic Failures in Institutional Accountability
The testimonies of these three survivors underscore the systemic failure within the United Nations to address sexual harassment effectively. Their accounts are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of unchecked abuse, enabled by institutional inertia and a lack of accountability.
The tribunal’s findings are a critical indictment of both the perpetrator and the institution’s response mechanisms. The judgment noted the organization’s failure to address systemic issues. Despite UNHCR’s Code of Conduct sessions and policies on harassment, the supervisor’s behavior persisted unchecked for years. Indeed, one must ask, why did this senior staff member continue to sexually harass women without any action taken against him?
Gaslighting as a New Weapon: “Sexism Against Men”
During the tribunal hearing, the perpetrator attempted to deflect blame by claiming “sexism against men,” suggesting that male managers were the real victims. He argued,
“It’s unfair that female employees behave in certain ways towards men and then complain of harassment and discrimination.”
This statement highlights a troubling and insidious new tactic employed by some senior male staff: weaponizing claims of reverse sexism to undermine genuine complaints. Such gaslighting adds another layer to the persistent problem of sexual harassment and serves to silence victims further while deflecting accountability from perpetrators.
The survivors’ reluctance to report their experiences speaks volumes about the culture of retaliation within the UN. Their silence is not an isolated phenomenon but rather indicative of a pervasive fear that reporting misconduct will result in swift and career-ending retribution. Take a loot at the the case of Martina Brostrom, who dared to denounce Luis Loures. Brostrom faced severe professional and personal consequences after coming forward with allegations. For readers interested in learning more about her ordeal, resources detailing her case can be accessed here. Her experience demonstrates the dire need for robust protections for whistleblowers within the UN system.
Inefficiency of the Ethics Office and Reporting Mechanisms
The Ethics Office, tasked with safeguarding staff from retaliation, is emblematic of the systemic rot within the UN. Staff in the Ethics Office have no real or genuine interest in understanding the complexity of such cases, and I don’t blame them. They are severely understaffed and receive hundreds of complaints every day. Moreover, there is no segregation between reporting lines, meaning the office often ends up reporting to the Executive Office, creating yet another conflict of interest. This deeply flawed system fails to inspire confidence and leaves victims vulnerable to further abuse. And so, the saga continues.
Credibility of Victim Testimony: The Power of Voice Without Witnesses
Another important reminder from this judgment is the emphasis made again by the UNDT on the credibility of the victims’ testimonies. The tribunal emphasized that credible oral testimonies are sufficient to establish allegations of sexual harassment, even in the absence of corroborating evidence. It highlighted the consistency and detail in the victims’ accounts as key factors in reaching its decision.
“due consideration must be given to the victim’s account, as these situations are not taken lightly by those affected. In fact, due to the sensitive nature of the matter, it is often extremely difficult for victims to file formal complaints and go through official procedures.”
It is well-established that
“in cases of sexual harassment, credible oral testimony alone can be fully sufficient to substantiate a conclusion of serious misconduct, even without additional corroboration” (Hallal; Haidar 2021-UNAT-1076, para. 43).
Further, the tribunal dismissed arguments that cultural misunderstandings could explain the perpetrator’s behavior. It reaffirmed that the perception of the victim is central to determining harassment.
Unmasking Predators: Survivors Take a Stand
Both UNHCR, the agency tasked with protecting refugees, and OHCHR, entrusted with upholding human rights, appear to be grappling with an alarming increase in sexual predators within their ranks. Many of these perpetrators remain employed and unpunished, while their victims continue to suffer in silence. Victims and survivors speak to me daily, sharing stories of fear, retaliation, and prolonged sick leave as their only escape from the hostile work environment. How can these organizations continue to turn a blind eye to such pervasive misconduct?
What we are witnessing now is a form of reverse accountability. Victims and survivors no longer trust in the system designed to protect them.
Neither the Secretary-General, the OIOS, the IGO, the Ethics Office, nor the Ombudsman have taken meaningful action to provide genuine safeguards or justice. Instead, survivors are left to fend for themselves, their trust in the system completely eroded. Many have shifted their focus from seeking protection to demanding exposure of their abusers.
They want these sexual predators held accountable and their contracts terminated, and I agree with them.
⚠️ Trigger Warning: This article contains detailed descriptions of workplace sexual harassment, which may be distressing to some readers, especially survivors of similar experiences. Please proceed with caution and prioritize your well-being.
“I’m a serial kisser.”
These were the chilling words of AAY, a P-5 level United Nations staff member, at UNHQ in New Yorkwhen describing his behavior during a farewell party at the United Nations headquarters in 2017. AAY’s actions that evening went far beyond social decorum, as he admitted to forcibly kissing, attempting to kiss, and physically restraining several female colleagues, leaving them shaken and traumatized.
In a UNAT judgment issued last week, AAY v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1493, the Appeals Tribunal reversed a previous UNDT judgment (Applicant v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UNDT/2023/111) that astonishingly justified the actions of the “serial kisser” because they occurred in a festive context. The UNDT, presided over by Judge Margaret Tibulya, ruled that AAY’s actions could not “reasonably be perceived to cause offence or humiliation, let alone to give any sexual connotation to the conduct,” given the festive nature of the event.
This rationale, implying that workplace harassment is excusable at a party, is as baffling as it is dangerous.
Bias in Judgment: How Cultural Disparities and Selection Failures Undermine the UNDT
What does this mean for female staff members of the United Nations?
According to this logic, if you attend an end-of-year party or a Christmas gathering, and your boss or colleague forces himself on you, attempts to kiss you, or chases you down a hallway, you should simply brush it off.
Maybe so says the UN tribunal, as the “festive context” seems to render such behavior acceptable. One might sarcastically conclude that this is the justice system’s way of reminding women to avoid social gatherings entirely—lest they accidentally wander into a no-rules zone where basic human dignity no longer applies.
Are we moving forward or backward with this system of justice? A tribunal tasked with protecting the rights and dignity of United Nations staff instead normalized behavior that undermines safety and equality in the workplace. If workplace sexual harassment can be brushed aside as “festive,” one must question the integrity of the system itself.
What could have caused Judge Tibulya to be blinded in her judgment? While UNDT judges are selected based on recommendations from the Internal Justice Council, emphasizing high moral character, impartiality, and geographical representation, this process does not eliminate the potential for judges to bring their own cultural biases and preconceptions into their decisions.
Judges, like all individuals, carry their own perspectives and values, which may not always align with the principles of justice and equality upheld by the United Nations. Perhaps it is time to include specific training for UNDT judges not only on the organization’s zero-tolerance policies but also on recognizing and mitigating their own biases to ensure their decisions reflect UN values and uphold fairness.
How else can they understand that the setting of the misconduct does not absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? It’s alarming that in 2024, we are forced to reexamine the very basics of workplace ethics and accountability.
AAY’s admissions to investigators were nothing short of appalling. He admitted, “I was trying to kiss her, and that’s why she was retracting,” and “I kissed her or I managed to kiss her on the forehead…she retracted, you know just leaning on the back.” When questioned about holding AA’s face and forcing a kiss on her, he casually replied, “Yeah, that’s how it went actually,” and added, “it’s like what you do when you kiss someone, you take the face and then you kiss him.” Shockingly, he downplayed the incident further, remarking, “It was not like this was the most romantic moment in my life let’s say.”
Despite these confessions, corroborated by testimony from the victims, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) found that the evidence did not meet the threshold for establishing misconduct. Astonishingly, the tribunal rationalized its decision by stating that the incidents occurred in a “festive context,” as though the celebratory atmosphere excused AAY’s actions.
Serial Kisser’s Defense: It Was All Just Festive Fun
AAY’s behavior, by his own account, included intrusive and unwelcome physical advances toward three female staff members. Excerpts from the testimonies of these three women are chilling:
AA: “I kept on resisting then he … sort of forced my head down and kissed me on the forehead.”
BB: “He grabbed my face in front of everyone … my instinct at that moment was to freeze … it could have been a bit of an out-of-body experience.”
CC: “He kept asking, ‘Did I kiss you tonight? Let me kiss you.’ I said, ‘I’m not interested.’ I started shouting, ‘I’m not interested.’ He pulled my hands apart forcefully. I felt it was impossible for me to get out of that grip.”
CC (continued): “He fell on me, and I used all my strength to push him away. I almost bent completely back trying to avoid him. His whole body was on top of me, and I felt utterly trapped.”
These women’s testimonies highlight the physical and psychological trauma they endured. CC described the night as “traumatic,” adding that she “was utterly shocked… like this is my office space and colleagues who I saw every day.” The lingering impact of the event was severe, with victims reporting sleepless nights, anxiety attacks, and feelings of helplessness.
Excusing Harassment: A Dangerous Message from the UNDT
The UNDT’s handling of this case is nothing short of a dereliction of justice. By dismissing clear evidence of misconduct and prioritizing flimsy contextual justifications over the dignity, safety, and rights of the victims, the tribunal has sent an unacceptable and dangerous message. Allowing harassment to be excused under the guise of a “festive context” trivializes the severity of the misconduct and undermines the United Nations’ professed commitment to equality and accountability. Thankfully, the UNAT overturned this troubling judgment, restoring some semblance of justice. The victims’ courage in coming forward should serve as a reminder that workplace safety and dignity are non-negotiable.
However, the victims had to endure an agonizing seven-year wait for this final judgment, as the case was remanded multiple times, delaying closure and accountability. Adding to the indignity, in a stark departure from established jurisprudence, the name of the perpetrator was anonymized, shielding him from the full consequences of his actions and depriving the victims of the transparency they deserved.
Why can’t these senior leaders understand that sexual harassment is a real offense and that a woman has an unequivocal right to say no? The repeated recruitment of individuals who exploit their power and disregard the fundamental principles of dignity and respect raises urgent questions about the United Nations’ commitment to upholding its own values.
Why does it take the UN eight years to deliver justice? And why does it continue to allow predators to occupy positions of authority within its ranks, further tarnishing the trust of those they are meant to protect?
This case is a stark reminder of how far the system must go to achieve meaningful reform and ensure workplace safety, no matter the setting.
In a not-so-surprising end-of-the-year twist from the UN Dispute Tribunal, a judgment in Egenhoff v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/108) was issued two days ago, shedding light on the alarming hypocrisy and casual horror with which the United Nations mismanages funds entrusted by donors and member states. Among the most shocking revelations was an email from the Director for the UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa stating:
“We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h)).
This casual remark not only raises questions about the lack of accountability but also exposes systemic flaws in how UN resources are allocated and justified. If there is leftover funding, it signals two disturbing realities: either the original project proposals were inflated from the start—effectively misleading member states and donors—or the allocated funds were poorly managed.
Worse still, instead of reallocating these surplus funds transparently or returning them to donors, the Applicant, T. Egenhoff, who was the Resident Representative (RR) for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Guinea-Bissau, used this as an opportunity to channel resources into projects linked to his former romantic partner’s organization, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). This reveals significant concerns about transparency and ethical stewardship, as the funds were hastily allocated to ensure they were not forfeited, bypassing competitive and thorough project evaluations.
Is this the level of accountability the UN upholds? To casually dispose of funds intended for vulnerable populations in Africa by rewarding personal relationships not only betrays the trust of donors and member states but also undermines the UN’s moral obligation to the communities it claims to serve.
The case involves T. Egenhoff, a former UNDP Resident Representative in Guinea-Bissau, accused of misconduct, including conflict of interest, leaking confidential information, and favoritism in procurement processes. His actions prioritized a personal connection over the integrity of the organization, undermining its accountability and ethical standards. Key findings from the judgment include:
Conflict of Interest: Egenhoff maintained a close personal relationship with AH, his former romantic partner and the focal point for the organization IPA. The judgment noted that “the Applicant was involved in a significant part of the procurement process with IPA, for which his former romantic partner and still close friend was the focal point” (para. 40).
Confidential Information Leaks: Egenhoff shared internal UNDP documents with AH, stating in one communication: “only for your eyes” (para. 35). The Tribunal observed that sharing such information violated the organization’s integrity and rules. It further emphasized that “the Applicant told IPA (through AH) how much money was available for outside projects and what types of projects IPA could propose” (para. 56), directly favoring IPA in the procurement process.
Misuse of Funds: Egenhoff’s cavalier attitude toward resource allocation was evident in his actions following the Director’s email: “We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h)). The Tribunal criticized this approach, highlighting the reputational damage such conduct could inflict on UNDP.
Transparency and Accountability: Egenhoff often blind-copied AH on internal communications, stating during the hearing, “I don’t know why I blind copied him because there’s no reason to blind copy” (para. 28). The judgment noted that “the purpose of sending a blind copy is precisely to obfuscate and hide from the other recipients that someone else is receiving a copy” (para. 29).
These actions, taken together, raised significant questions about Egenhoff’s ethical judgment and undermined the principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency within the organization. Despite these serious ethical violations, the Tribunal overturned Egenhoff’s dismissal and reduced the disciplinary measure to a written censure.
Similar Ethical Violations, Different Outcomes
The similarities between this case and the widely publicized UNOPS Vanshelboim case(Vanshelboim v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UNDT/2024/072) underscore systemic vulnerabilities in the UN’s internal controls and justice system. Judge Sean Wallace, who authored the lenient judgment here, was part of the three-judge panel that upheld the termination of a senior official in the Vanshelboim case. Both cases center on high-level misconduct involving conflicts of interest, misuse of UN resources, and prioritization of personal connections over organizational integrity. The only significant difference is the scale of the funds—$300,000 in this case compared to $63 million in Vanshelboim’s.
Key points of comparison include:
Conflict of Interest:
In the Vanshelboim case, the senior official was implicated in a conflict of interest by facilitating multimillion-dollar contracts for a company closely associated with him and his network. Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the UNDP Resident Representative (RR) ensured preferential treatment for IPA, represented by his former romantic partner AH, in a $300,000 project.
Both cases involve the improper use of personal relationships to bypass ethical standards and create opportunities for favored parties.
Favoritism in Procurement:
Vanshelboim was found to have disregarded competitive bidding processes, directly benefiting a specific vendor. Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the RR avoided competitive selection under the guise of urgency, ensuring IPA’s position as the sole vendor, even coaching AH on how to improve IPA’s proposal to meet the required standards (para. 56).
Misuse of Resources:
The Vanshelboim case exposed systematic abuse of UNOPS financial resources, with funds being diverted under questionable justifications. In Egenhoff’s case, the RR’s actions following the Director’s email—“We have $300,000 left for African populations, please find a project for it” (para. 10(h))—illustrate a similarly casual approach to fund allocation, prioritizing personal connections over the needs of vulnerable beneficiaries.
Reputational Damage and Sanction Discrepancies
Both cases highlight how unethical actions by senior officials jeopardize the United Nations’ credibility. In the Vanshelboim case, the tribunal explicitly stated: “The conduct not only breached internal regulations but posed significant reputational risks to the organization, diminishing donor trust and public confidence in UNOPS’s ability to manage resources responsibly.”
Similarly, in the Egenhoff case, the tribunal noted that the RR’s actions exposed the organization to reputational harm, particularly due to his failure to disclose a conflict of interest and the perception that funds allocated for vulnerable populations were misused (para. 53).
In Vanshelboim’s case, the misuse of $63 million represented a large-scale betrayal of donor trust and compromised the organization’s ability to fulfill its developmental goals. Similarly, in the present case, the casual suggestion to find a project for “$300,000 left for African populations” reflects an equally damaging disregard for the ethical responsibility to prioritize those in need. Funds meant to support sustainable development in vulnerable communities were treated as an afterthought, diverted to benefit personal connections.
However, the intent remains the same: to deceive the organization, bypass its regulatory framework, and misallocate funds. At the heart of these violations lies a disregard for the communities the UN is mandated to serve.
This betrayal of trust extends beyond financial misuse. When senior officials exploit their positions, it tarnishes the UN’s reputation and erodes the confidence of the very populations that rely on the organization’s integrity to advocate for justice and equity.
Ethical Failures and Systemic Vulnerabilities
The UN framework relies heavily on the principle of ethical stewardship to maintain credibility with donors, partners, and beneficiaries alike.
When the UNDT applies such inconsistent standards—terminating one official for a $63 million violation while issuing a mere censure for a $300,000 misuse—it signals that the organization’s commitment to accountability is conditional, if not selective.
The crux of these violations is not the scale of the funds misused but the fundamental breach of trust in both cases. Judge Wallace’s markedly different judgments on two cases with fundamentally similar offenses suggest a troubling double standard that undermines confidence in the UNDT’s impartiality and weakens the UN’s moral authority in serving the world’s most vulnerable.
In a shocking judgment issued last week UNDT/2024/100 ATR vs. SG of the United Nations, the UNDT exposed the United Nations’ fallacious standards regarding #sexualharassment and the preferential treatment afforded to some of its senior sexual predators.
Despite numerous policies such as ST/ICs, ST/AIs, and ST/SGBs, allegations of sexual harassment within the #UnitedNations were still rampant by 2017. Secretary-General António Guterres requested the CEB to create a Task Force on Addressing Sexual Harassment within the Organizations of the UN System. Yet today, it seems the “zero-tolerance policy” has become a cherry-picking tool.
In a damning case, Mr. Polinikis Sophocleous, a D-1 level Director and Chief of Finance at the UNOV, was found guilty of sexually harassing a female staff member. The judgment revealed:
That the perpetrator made unwelcome physical contact, including hugs, kisses, and stares;
That the perpetrator made disturbing comments to the victim, including telling her that he “stroked a doll while naked in his office to relax when stressed”;
A hostile environment where the victim felt compelled to alter her attire, avoid him, seek counseling, and search for external opportunities to escape his predatory behavior.
This pattern of conduct was corroborated by witness statements describing his similar behavior toward junior female colleagues.
Despite the investigation substantiating the allegations, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources (ASG/HR) refused to disclose the disciplinary measure imposed on Mr. Sophocleous. The victim was left in the dark about what action, if any, had been taken—until she discovered through the perpetrator’s appeal that the penalty imposed was demotion by one grade with a three-year deferment for promotion eligibility.
A measure so lenient for proven acts of sexual harassment—including physical violations, obscene comments, and sustained psychological harm—not only diminishes the gravity of the misconduct but undermines the UN’s professed commitment to combating such behavior. This revelation starkly betrays the principles of accountability and zero tolerance that the UN claims to uphold in addressing sexual harassment.
What makes this measure even more egregious is the disparity it reveals: lower-level staff guilty of similar misconduct are always terminated, while a senior manager like Mr. Sophocleous escapes with a token punishment.
The Tribunal itself remarked on the absurdity of this disparity, noting that such leniency for senior officials is “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.” This leniency, delivered after a staggering three-year delay in sanctions, demonstrates not just systemic inefficiency but a disturbing willingness to shield high-ranking offenders at the expense of victims and accountability.
A Judge Stunned into Commentary
The shockingly lenient punishment so outraged the Tribunal that Judge Sean Wallace, presiding over the case, took the extraordinary step of including a detailed footnote to highlight the absurdity of the UN’s practices. Footnote 1, in particular, exposes the preferential treatment given to managers:
“Although sexual harassment most frequently results in termination of a UN staff member, if the offender is a manager with considerable power over the affected individuals, the most frequently imposed disciplinary measure is that of demotion with deferment of at least one year of eligibility for consideration for promotion.”
The judge’s decision to underscore this disparity in such a public manner reflects his astonishment at the blatant hypocrisy of the UN’s “zero-tolerance” policy. The footnote further critiques the reduced punishment for high-level officials as “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.”
Systemic Failures That Embolden Predators
Judge Wallace did not stop at criticizing the punishment; he also detailed systemic failures that protected Mr. Sophocleous:
Delays: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) took 16 months to notify the perpetrator of formal allegations and a staggering three years to impose sanctions. Such delays undermine accountability and embolden perpetrators.
Opaque Processes: The refusal to disclose the disciplinary measure denied the victim critical reassurance, leaving her to fear encountering her harasser in future roles within the UN system.
Even the most naïve observer would question how such actions align with the UN’s stated policy of zero tolerance.
A Perpetrator-Centered Policy: Exposing the Secretary-General’s Contradictions
One should not blame the Tribunal for the systemic failures exposed in this case.
Every year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations submits his report, Practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters and cases of possible criminal behavior, to the General Assembly. In his most recent report, A/78/603, covering the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, the SG reported that all cases of sexual harassment that were investigated resulted in the termination or dismissal of the staff member. These outcomes were rightly heralded as reinforcing the principle of the UN’s zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment (Ref: 624–628, p. 30 of the SG’s report).
But this raises the critical questions:
Why was Mr. Sophocleous, a senior official found guilty of sexual harassment, granted such preferential treatment and allowed to remain on active duty?
How can a staff member proven to have engaged in such egregious misconduct be permitted to continue working within the UN system?
And how can the Secretary-General continue to strongly proclaim that the “UN will not tolerate sexual harassment in its ranks” when actions such as these blatantly contradict those words? What kind of hypocrisy is this?
Rather than adopting a victim-centered approach, the UN has effectively embraced a perpetrator-centered approach.
The Right to Know: A Landmark Ruling for Victims of Sexual Harassment
In a groundbreaking analysis, the Tribunal ruled for the first time on the victim’s right to be informed of the disciplinary measure imposed on their harasser. The judgment stated:
“The Tribunal finds that the question of whether a victim of sexual harassment has the right to be informed of the discipline imposed on his/her harasser must be resolved. The question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether informing the victim that the Organization has ‘decided to impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ complies with the requirement to disclose ‘the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken.’”
The Tribunal unequivocally determined that it did not.
“In this context, saying that one took disciplinary action is not the same as disclosing ‘the action taken.’ It is a tautology; in other words, it is saying the same thing twice over in different words. In effect, the ASG/HR told the victim here that ‘the action taken was to take action.’”
The Tribunal further emphasized that the right of a victim to be informed of the disposition of their case is enshrined in para. 6(a) of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in A/RES/40/34, para. 3 (1985).
It clarified that the right of a victim of sexual harassment to know both the outcome of the investigation and the action taken is embedded in Section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1 and para. 5.5(i) of ST/SGB/2019/8, which explicitly state:
“[T]he affected individual … shall be informed on a strictly confidential basis of the outcome of the matter.”
The purpose of these provisions is clear: to create transparency and accountability, implementing the principle that “sunlight is an antiseptic” to the plague of sexual harassment. However, the UN’s response in this case failed to meet this standard. Instead, the refusal to disclose meaningful details to the victim rendered the process opaque and ineffective, an “inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.“
Under Staff Rule 10.2(a), “an appropriate disciplinary measure” could range from a written censure to separation from service. A written censure amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, while separation from service effectively ends a career within the international civil service. Thus, knowing precisely where the sanction falls on this spectrum is critical, yet the victim was denied this clarity.
The judge further recalled that it was essential to recall the context in which these policies were issued, particularly ST/SGB/2019/8, during the height of the #MeToo movement. “This was a time of global reckoning, with public outcry over the prevalence of sexual harassment and claims that the UN’s investigative system was failing, often shielding favored individuals. Despite these reforms, the organization’s actions in this case prove that those promises of accountability remain unfulfilled.”
In sum, the Tribunal found that the UN unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr. Sophocleous.
This judgment sets a critical precedent for the rights of victims of sexual harassment in the future. Without the right to know, the UN’s declarations are nothing more than lip service. Victims have the right to know. Sexual predators have no place in the organization—and they should never be protected.
A Perpetrator-Centered System
The UN’s actions in this case revealed a disturbing trend: a perpetrator-centered approach that prioritizes the privacy and careers of offenders over the rights and dignity of victims. The Tribunal ruled that the organization unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary action taken, stating:
“Informing a victim of sexual harassment that the Organization has decided to ‘impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ is opaque, not transparent, and an inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.”
Instead of protecting victims, the UN shields perpetrators through delayed processes, vague communication, and disproportionately lenient punishments. Even tools like the ClearCheck database, ostensibly designed to prevent re-employment of sexual predators, remain mired in opacity, with no clear accountability for its implementation.
Lip Service to Accountability
The Secretary-General’s annual reports claim that sexual harassment cases are handled with the utmost seriousness. However, this judgment exposes the truth: a justice system that protects the powerful and silences victims.
The Tribunal observed:
“When the Organization refuses to disclose the discipline it imposed, the harasser returns to work, and the Organization later admits that managers frequently receive lighter punishment than others for sexual harassment, even the most gullible person must wonder about the Organization’s professed commitment to ‘zero tolerance.'”
This is not an isolated case. It is emblematic of a broader pattern of hypocrisy, where rhetoric about justice and accountability is undermined by actions that perpetuate impunity.
Member States and Donors Must Demand Accountability for Sexual Harassment Failures in the UN
The UN is called upon to immediately address the following critical questions arising from this damning case:
Why was a senior official found guilty of egregious misconduct allowed to effectively escape meaningful accountability? Despite clear evidence of predatory behavior, the imposed sanction amounted to little more than a career inconvenience—a far cry from the termination mandated by the UN’s so-called zero-tolerance policy.
How will the UN ensure that all victims of sexual harassment are informed of the detailed outcomes of disciplinary processes against their perpetrators? In light of this judgment, transparency is not optional; it is an obligation. The right to know must be enforced consistently and without exception.
Donors and member states must demand clear and immediate answers from the Secretary-General about this case. How does the UN plan to reconcile its public commitment to a zero-tolerance policy with the blatant failure exposed in this judgment? Without transparency, justice, and accountability, what credibility remains for the organization tasked with upholding global human rights?
The media, civil society, and global stakeholders should question how the UN’s leadership plans to address this glaring hypocrisy. To remain silent is to condone a system that protects perpetrators and silences victims. This case must become a turning point, not another example of impunity buried in bureaucratic indifference.
I am writing this not as a distant observer but as someone who has experienced the crushing impact of the UN’s systemic failures firsthand. The Secretary-General and UN leadership must answer—not just to their staff, but to every individual who once trusted this organization to stand for justice. This case is personal for victims, and it should be personal for anyone who still believes in the ideals the UN claims to represent.
This is the story of a mother and #UNICEF staff member, whose treatment by the very organization tasked with protecting children’s rights stands as a shocking betrayal of its mandate.
The staff member began her journey with #UNICEF in #Gaza as a UN Volunteer (UNV) Assistant Education Officer in October 2022. By February 2024, pregnant with her second child and increasingly concerned about her health amidst Gaza’s deteriorating medical infrastructure, she requested a medical evacuation. It was not a request for privilege but a plea for survival—for her life and that of her unborn child. UNICEF also had a responsibility to evacuate her medically.
UNICEF evacuated her to Cairo, where she gave birth in April 2024. Just weeks later, the Rafah border closed, leaving her stranded in Egypt with a newborn and a toddler. The staff member became a #Palestinian #refugee in a foreign land, grappling with a dire reality. Her UNV contract was set to expire in June 2024, but UNICEF extended it for the duration of her maternity leave—a decision dictated by UN policy, not generosity.
What UNICEF did next was a cold and calculated act that destroyed any pretense of compassion or humanity.
At the end of her maternity leave, UNICEF terminated her contract.
No transition plan.
No support.
No accountability.
A Palestinian refugee from Gaza, a mother of two young children—was left without an income and stranded in a country where she had no legal residency.
Desperate, she sent an email to UNICEF, offering to risk the unimaginable: returning to Gaza, a war-torn land with her seven-month-old baby and three-year-old child, if it meant retaining her sole source of income.
UNICEF’s shocking response?
They silenced her entirely by shutting down her email account, severing her last lifeline to plead for her children’s survival.
Yes, you read that right.
This is how UNICEF treated their own staff member—a woman and a mother—during one of the most severe humanitarian crises of our time.
UNICEF claims to uphold the rights of children and advocate for their well-being. Yet, when faced with the plight of their own staff member’s children, they turned away.
How can we trust UNICEF to safeguard the rights of the world’s most vulnerable children if they fail to protect the children of their own staff?
The justification is always the same: budget constraints, post-conversion processes, or bureaucratic hurdles. But none of these excuses explain why her UNV contract could not be extended. She had served UNICEF for two years, and her evacuation to Cairo was a medical necessity—not a luxury. Instead, it appears UNICEF cynically treated her maternity leave as an opportunity to sever ties, hiding behind technicalities while abandoning her and her children to an uncertain fate.
Why should any woman be forced to choose between the right to embrace motherhood and the right to a fulfilling career?
PerhapsUNICEFExecutive Director Catherine Russell cares to answer?
This is not just a failure of UN policy—it is a failure of ethical responsibility and the UN’s duty of care, perpetuated by an organization that claims to champion the rights of women and children.
Today, she remains in Egypt, a refugee in every sense of the word. Without legal residency, she cannot work. She cannot provide for her children. She faces insurmountable social, financial, and psychological challenges.
What are you doing to ensure that women are not forced into impossible choices that risk their lives, jeopardize their children’s futures, and strip away their livelihoods? IIf such failures continue unchecked, what is the true value of your high-profile position and the mandate it represents?
UN Women’s mandate is clear: to champion gender equality and empower women, ensuring they can fully exercise their rights—including the right to work and to motherhood without fear or discrimination. Yet, in the case of the staff member, a mother and a UN staff member, these principles have been utterly abandoned.
How can the UN Women justify forcing staff like her to choose between their maternity leave, a perilous return to Gaza, or termination of their contracts?
Where is the accountability to uphold the very values that #UNWomen is meant to represent? How can women across the UN system trust that they will be supported in their roles as professionals and mothers if even your leadership has remained silent in the face of such injustice?
How the War in Gaza Exposed UN Hypocrisy and Empty Promises
The war in Gaza has exposed many truths, but perhaps none as stark as the hypocrisy of institutions like UNICEF and UN Women. Organizations that positions themselves as the global defender of children’s rights and women’s empowerment and who failed spectacularly in upholding those principles for their own staff.
This story is a glaring indictment of a system that preaches equality and protection but practices abandonment and betrayal. For the staff member and her children—living as refugees, stripped of dignity and support—the question is not just whether the UN will uphold the principles it preaches. It is whether the world can trust institutions that exploit their own policies to discard those who serve them.
If #UNICEF and #UNWomen are unwilling to protect the very women and children in their own organizations, how can they claim the moral authority to safeguard anyone else’s?
We must demand justice for the staff and her children by calling for her immediate reinstatement with the full dignity and support she deserves—because anything less is an acceptance of hypocrisy and a betrayal of the very principles UNICEF claims to uphold.
This article exposes disturbing news within the United Nations’ humanitarian agencies: the World Food Programme (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF are preparing to terminate the contracts of Palestinian staff who fled Gaza for safety. These staff members, who at great personal expense relocated to escape the intensifying conflictin Gaza, have continued to fulfill their roles remotely, demonstrating utmost commitment to their missions. Yet, in an unprecedented move, WFP, WHO, and UNICEF are demanding that these employees return to a war-torn Gaza or face job termination. This decision not only threatens the lives of Palestinian staff but also reveals a troubling double standard in the UN’s duty of care, as telecommuting privileges afforded to international staff in safe locations are denied to those in crisis zones.
In response to this pressing issue, I have formally addressed a letter ( attached below) to Mr. António Guterres, Ms. Cindy McCain, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, and Ms. Catherine Russell, urging them to halt the termination of Palestinian staff who have fled Gaza for their safety. I encourage you to share this letter widely and, if possible, send your own message to these leaders to amplify the call for a just and compassionate response to protect these dedicated colleagues.
As UN staff and advocates of humanitarian values, we have a duty to stand with our colleagues facing unjust decisions. By reading this article, raising awareness, and calling for an immediate halt to the termination of these Palestinian staff, you can help protect those who risk everything to serve.
In a shocking turn, the World Food Programme (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF have made a quiet yet devastating decision: to terminate the contracts of their Palestinian staff members who managed to escape Gaza.
These are the people who, at their own expense and against all odds, sought safety outside the war zone, yet remain dedicated to their work and the humanitarian missions of these organizations. Now, WFP, WHO, and UNICEF are demanding they return to Gaza—a war torn region with decimated infrastructure and a collapsing health system—or face the end of their employment.
This is not just a policy decision; it is a direct threat to the lives of the very people these organizations are meant to protect. Instructing staff to return under such conditions, while withholding the telecommuting options freely available to staff in safer locations, exposes a troubling double standard in the UN system’s duty of care.
The World Food Programme has 12 national staff members who work in Gaza. The 12 staff have self-relocated themselves outside Gaza. Each staff member paid $5,000, plus an additional $5,000 per dependent, to secure safety for themselves and their families.
Now living in precarious conditions, they rely solely on their modest salaries. Remarkably, , these staff members have continued to telecommute and fulfill their duties under intensely challenging circumstances.
In the face of the escalating violence in Gaza, particularly in the north, one might expect these humanitarian agencies to support and protect their displaced staff.
Instead, WFP has moved to terminate the contracts of these 12 staff members. UNICEF is preparing to follow suit with its 13 Palestinian staff, and the World Health Organization (WHO) plans to do the same for roughly 10 additional Palestinian personnel.
Yes, you read that correctly.
According to our sources, WFP has already conducted discreet meetings with affected staff, instructing them to return to Gaza before the year’s end, effectively ending their telecommuting arrangements.
Last we heard, Gaza is a war zone, its infrastructure obliterated, its civilian population struggling to survive amidst scarce medical and humanitarian resources.
How, then, can these organizations demand that their Palestinian staff return to such conditions, with the threat of contract termination, if they do not comply?
Consider this: in Geneva, a headquarters duty station is classified as “A” (non-hazardous), with no active conflict, and more than 50% of staff are allowed to telecommute.
Geneva employees enjoy top-tier medical insurance, offices overlooking Lake Leman, and work in the prestigious Palais des Nations. General Service staff in Geneva earn no less than $8,000 a month.
Yet WFP, WHO, and UNICEF see fit to terminate some 30 Palestinian staff who risked everything to escape the violence in Gaza.
For Palestinian staff, apparently, telecommuting is not an option.
This approach starkly contradicts the principles of humanitarian aid and the duty of care these organizations claim to uphold.
Recently, WFP held a virtual meeting informing staff that if they do not return to Gaza by the end of December, they will be placed on special leave without pay and their contracts will not be renewed upon expiry. This approach seems almost Machiavellian, designed to avoid paying termination indemnities by letting contracts run their course instead.
While WFP, UNICEF, and WHO appear eager to terminate their Palestinian staff contracts, they are also rapidly issuing temporary surge contracts to international staff, bringing them to the Rafah border—where, reportedly, there is little they can contribute.
The difference?
These newly recruited staff are mostly from the Global North; they are not Palestinian.
Asking Palestinian local staff to return to Gaza amidst an escalating conflict represents a direct threat to their safety, blatantly violating the organization’s duty of care—a principle meant to apply to all staff, not just internationals.
Many of these Palestinian staff members have lost their homes and are already in dire financial straits. Cutting off their last source of income would be devastating for them and their families.
Most of these staff have served WFP, UNICEF, and WHO loyally for over fifteen years. Is this how the Secretary-General intends to reward Gaza’s Palestinian staff who have upheld the values of these organizations, even in the face of personal danger?
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’ Harassmentand 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.
Subject: Accountability and Action Required on the Ongoing Genocide in Palestine
Mr. Secretary-General,
While we recognize that the United Nations reflects the collective will of its member states, these states must take greater action. However, your position as Secretary-General demands more from you in this critical moment for humanity.
It is unfathomable that ethnic cleansing in North Gaza is taking place before the eyes of the world, with the international community remaining largely passive. As Secretary-General of the United Nations, you have a duty to uphold. You can, and you must, do more.
The time for mere ‘condemnation’ has passed. The United Nations must replace it with an uncompromising and explicit denunciation of those perpetrating this genocide against the Palestinian people: the State of Israel.
Yes, this is a genocide in plain sight—a systematic extermination of innocent, defenseless Palestinian men, women, and children.
The international community cannot remain idle when the voice of a Palestinian mother cries out: “I lost my ten children. All killed by Israel. I have no one with me but God.”
The United Nations has failed—and it has failed miserably. You, Mr. Secretary-General, have failed, and history will hold you accountable. You cannot continue to hide behind empty statements. You have a duty to stand up for what is right.
Mr. Secretary-General, you cannot disregard the United Nations’ lessons and the insights of former Secretaries-General on the early warnings of genocide, especially since the situation in Gaza has already surpassed this stage. On March 26, 2004, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan delivered a statement in remembrance of the Rwandan genocide. The excerpts from his message, now more relevant than ever, echo with even greater urgency today:
“If the United Nations, government officials, the international media, and other observers had paid more attention to the gathering signs of disaster, and taken timely action, it might have been averted. Warnings were missed. I recall a 1993 report by a United Nations special rapporteur that spoke specifically of an impending catastrophe.”
“None of us must ever forget, or be allowed to forget, that genocide did take place in Rwanda, or that it was highly organized, or that it was carried out in broad daylight. No one who followed world affairs or watched the news on television, day after sickening day, could deny that they knew a genocide was happening, and that it was happening on an appalling scale.”
“Eight hundred thousand men, women and children were abandoned to the most brutal and callous of deaths, as neighbour killed neighbour. Sanctuaries such as churches and hospitals were turned into slaughterhouses. An entire country was shattered. A terrible chain of events gradually engulfed the entire region in conflict. Ten years later, we are trying to pick up the pieces.”
“If we can accept that everyone on this earth, regardless of colour, creed, language or ethnicity is fully human — and, as such, fully worthy of our interest, sympathy and acceptance –- we will have taken a giant step forward from dehumanization and toward a stronger sense of global kinship.”
Call for Immediate Action:
Mr. Secretary-General,
I urge you to immediately distribute the report by Mr. B.W. Ndiaye, Special Rapporteur on Rwanda, dated August 11, 1993, to all permanent missions at the United Nations. As Secretary-General, it is your responsibility to remind member states of the devastating consequences that arise from ignoring the lessons of history. You are their voice, and it is your duty to guide them, ensuring they understand the grave repercussions of neglecting these lessons.
There are clear parallels between the early warning signs outlined in the Rwanda Genocide report and the ongoing Palestinian Genocide, including:
1. Widespread Extrajudicial Killings and Targeting of Civilians:
Rwanda: The Special Rapporteur’s report notes frequent extrajudicial killings, massacres of civilians, and a deliberate targeting of Tutsis by Hutu militias and security forces. These actions involved organized campaigns of violence, reflecting state complicity or inaction. Palestine: Reports by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, document civilian casualties resulting from Israeli airstrikes and military operations in Gaza, as well as extrajudicial killings of Palestinians in the West Bank. They also describe targeted attacks on civilians, including women and children, and carpet bombing of densely populated areas like Gaza, resulting in large-scale civilian casualties. Gaza, especially North Gaza, has been wiped to the ground. Hundreds of Mass Graves in Gaza have been uncovered in the past few months.
2. Impunity and Lack of Accountability:
Rwanda: The report highlights a “tradition of impunity,” where those responsible for violations of human rights, including state actors, were not held accountable. This culture of impunity emboldened the perpetrators and perpetuated the violence. Palestine: A recurring critique by international human rights bodies is Israel’s lack of accountability for human rights abuses and violations of international law in Palestinian territories. The Israeli government and military officials are rarely held responsible for attacks on civilians or violations of international law, perpetuating cycles of violence and contributing to a deep sense of injustice. Even arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant have proven to be in vain.
3. Ethnic and Political Discrimination:
Rwanda: The report mentions policies institutionalizing discrimination against Tutsis and other minorities, combined with propaganda that depicted Tutsis as a threat, fostering an environment ripe for mass violence. Palestine: Palestinians face systematic discrimination in various aspects of life, including housing, movement, and access to resources. The Israeli legal framework differentiates between Israeli settlers and Palestinians living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which human rights organizations and the UN have described as a form of apartheid. In Gaza, the ongoing blockade has created dire humanitarian conditions for Palestinians and imposed starvation on the Palestinian people, equating to war crimes.
4. Injurious Propaganda and Incitement to Violence:
Rwanda: Hate propaganda was a key factor in fueling violence, with media outlets inciting ethnic hatred and dehumanizing the Tutsi population. This incitement contributed to a climate that normalized violence against the Tutsi community. Palestine: There is significant concern over rhetoric that dehumanizes Palestinians and legitimizes violence against them. Statements by several Israeli political leaders including PM Netanyahu, Galant, Ben Gvir and Smotrich, media narratives, and social media campaigns have been cited as inciting violence or promoting discriminatory attitudes, fostering a climate that normalizes aggression against Palestinians
5. Mass Displacement and Humanitarian Crisis:
Rwanda: Nearly a million people were displaced. Palestine: Two million Palestinians have been displaced, living in dire humanitarian conditions. Palestinians now live now in makeshift shelters or overcrowded camps. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is particularly dire, with shortages of clean water, electricity, and essential medical supplies, exacerbating civilian suffering and leading to a huge number of deaths every day. All Hospitals and Ambulances have been destroyed, and yesterday, Red Crescent volunteers have been stopped from continuing their life-saving roles in North Gaza.
6. International Community’s Role and Warnings:
Rwanda: The report warned the international community about the ongoing human rights violations and the potential for mass atrocities. Despite this, there was a lack of meaningful international intervention until the genocide was well underway. Palestine: The situation in Gaza and the West Bank has been under international scrutiny for decades. Despite repeated warnings from UN agencies, international bodies, and human rights groups about potential war crimes and mass atrocities, there has been limited action to address the root causes of the violence or hold perpetrators accountable. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has launched into a 24/7 televised genocide against the Palestinian people.
In his conclusions in the 1993 report, the Special Rapporteur reminded member states that his
“recommendations take as their starting-point the principle that although their country is poor and overpopulated and they are exposed to all the evils of underdevelopment, Rwandese citizens, whatever their ethnic group, political affiliation or social origin, have the same fundamental rights as all other citizens throughout the world. There is no reason why their lives should not be as precious and well protected as the lives of citizens of the Netherlands, for example.”
The exact starting principle applies to the Palestinian people. You, as Secretary-General, must remind the international community that:
There is no reason why Palestinian lives should not be as precious and well protected as the lives of citizens of the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, France or the United States, for example.
While the historical, political, and contextual differences between Rwanda and Palestine are significant, the key similarities lie in the dynamics of ethnic cleansing, systematic violence, impunity, discrimination, and the international community’s inadequate response. In both cases, there is a failure to protect civilians and prevent human rights abuses, despite repeated warnings and evidence of escalating violence. The lessons from Rwanda underscore the urgent need for accountability, international intervention, and meaningful efforts to address the systemic causes of violence and discrimination to prevent further atrocities against the Palestinian people.
Mr. Secretary-General, your continued inaction in the face of what is undeniably a genocide in Palestine is an unforgivable betrayal of the very principles the United Nations was founded upon. The mandate of your office is not a privilege to be passively held but a solemn responsibility to actively protect those in danger. By remaining silent as atrocities are committed, you are failing not just the Palestinian people, but the entire international community that looks to you for moral leadership in times of crisis.
It is not enough to issue vague statements of concern or empty condemnations. You must denounce Israel as the enabler of this genocide, unequivocally and publicly, and take clear, immediate action with member states to stop these atrocities. The world is witnessing not just an escalating conflict, but the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, the systematic destruction of their homes and infrastructure, and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of an entire Palestinian population.
Your reluctance to act decisively in this moment of grave injustice is a stain on your tenure and a dereliction of your responsibilities. The bloodshed in Palestine is not just a tragedy—it is a crime against humanity, and your failure to address it directly and truthfully implicates your leadership in its continuation. History will not absolve those who stood idly by or spoke in euphemisms while lives were destroyed.
If you do not act now, Mr. Secretary-General, you will forever be remembered not as a steward of peace, but as an enabler of genocide. You have the power to make a difference, to intervene decisively, and to mobilize the world’s conscience. Yet every moment of passivity and silence from you is a choice to condone these atrocities.
We demand that you take immediate action and use the full weight of your office to mobilize member states to stop this genocide. Issue clear denunciations of those responsible, enforce sanctions, and establish mechanisms for accountability. Anything less is complicity.
Choose to be remembered as a leader who took a stand against genocide, not one who looked away while an entire Palestinian people were systematically eradicated. History is watching, the world is watching, and the suffering in Palestine demands your courage and your voice—now.
Sincerely, Nadine H. Kaddoura Former UN Senior Staff and Founder CERTIORARIS 24 October 2024
2024 is the year that witnessed the highest number of extrajudicial killings carried out by the state of Israel.
Hello, Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Your views?
2024 is the year that saw the highest number of Children Killed and DECAPITATED by the state of Israel
Hello, Virgina Gamba, Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. Your statement?
2024 is the year that saw the highest number of Women Killed by Israel, more than any other equivalent period of any war over the last two decades.
Hello, Sima Bahous, Executive Director of UN Women. Do you really care about Arab Women?
2024 is the year that saw the worst humanitarian crisis and forced starvation imposed by Isr@el against the Palestinian people in Gaza
Hello, Joyce Cleopa Msuya Mpanju, USG United Nations OCHA; Hello, Cindy H. McCain, Executive Director of the World Food Programme
Maybe you don’t need to do anything because Israeli PM convinced you that he was providing 3000 calories for every Palestinian on a daily basis?
2024 witnessed the worst record of human rights abuse by Israel against Palestinians, killing doctors and medical staff, torturing Palestinians, pioneering pagers detonations in Lebanon, etc…
Hello, Volker Türk, High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights. Did you hear the boom?
2024 witnessed the worst record of sexual violence against Palestinian men and women.
Hello, Pramila Patten, Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict. What do you do exactly?
2024 witnessed the worst record of violence against Palestinian children, maiming them, orphaning them, and traumatizing them.
Hello, Najat Maalla, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence against Children. Do you really care?
2024 saw the Children of Palestine deprived of any emergency food and healthcare.
Hello, Catherine Mary Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF; we know you’ve visited Gaza only once. WOW!
2024 saw the Children of Gaza deprived of any education or normal upbringing and the highest number of mosques and churches destroyed by Israel.
Salut Audrey Azoulay, Executive Director of UNESCO, rings a bell?
2024 is the Year that Israel committed the worst live Genocide against Gaza.
Hello Alice Wairimu Nderitu, Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, do you really exist?
2024 is the year that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli PM Netanyahu, but he was still allowed to enter the UNHQ premises. 2024 is the year that the Israeli ambassador to the UN shredded the UN Charter in protest over the Palestine vote in the GA.
2024 is the year that the Secretary-General allowed Hitler to attend the 79th General Assembly.
2024 is the year that the United Nations principles of :
Maintaining International Peace and Security. Protecting Human Rights. Delivering Humanitarian Aid. Upholding International Law
UNRWA management is no longer reporting the deaths of UNRWA Palestinian staff members killed by I@r@e@ in Gaza.
UNRWA Commissioner-General reports the death of approximately 207 Palestinian staff members, but this number is incorrect. The actual figure is much higher, double or triple, around 500. This number excludes the hundreds of dependents that have not been accounted for.
According to direct reports, the bereaved families have stopped notifying UNRWA about the death due to fear of their salaries being cut off immediately.
When a staff member dies, UNRWA immediately removes them from the payroll instead of compensating them according to the Malicious Act Insurance Policy. Just a reminder: every bereaved family has the right to around 120,000 USD. UNRWA has not yet paid a penny.
The grieving families have chosen to stop reporting the death of their loved ones to safeguard their last remaining resource. Instead of fulfilling their obligations, UNRWA management further exploits the death of their staff members in their daily social media posts.
The discrimination is attributed to Western countries and allies being the only ones in charge of UNRWA senior management positions. Yesterday, the UNRWA Commissioner-General paid tribute to aid workers killed in the line of duty, stating that “… the war in Gaza broke all existing rules of war. Those responsible must be held accountable…”
Commissioner-General, could you start by taking responsibility for the families of UNRWA staff killed in the line of duty?
Wouldn’t it be better if you stopped breaking your own rules? The United Nations’ rules?
Could you explain why Palestinian staff are being discriminated against and not receiving the compensation they are entitled to?
Why not inform your audience about the thousands of dollars your Western Surge staff are being paid for doing nothing?
The funds intended for the bereaved families are now being disbursed to the international staff so they can enjoy rest and recovery.
In the meantime, the Commissioner-General continues pretending by writing more useless op-eds and firing more UNRWA staff.
With the focus of global attention now on Iran’s retaliation to the Israeli assault on the Iranian embassy in Syria, the UN Secretary-General is providing additional cover for Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Seemingly overnight, the world’s collective gaze has swerved towards issues of ballistic missiles, belligerence, the principle of reciprocation, and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
In the midst of it all, Israel is meticulously strategizing its Rafah assault, further extending its acts of genocide without any accountability. Israel has so far killed over 42,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 innocent children and 10,000 women, while the wounded have surpassed the 80,000 mark.
Instead of focusing the world’s attention on the imminent invasion of Rafah and the continuous slaughter of the Palestinian people, the Secretary-General bewilderingly decided to spend the 5th of April emphasizing Israel as the aggrieved party.
It seems as if the Secretary-General might be indirectly supporting Israel’s acts of genocide.
In his own words, these were his opening remarks:
“This Sunday marks six months since Hamas launched its abhorrent terror attacks in Israel. The 7th of October is a day of pain for Israel and the world.
The United Nations, and I personally, mourn with Israelis for the 1,200 people, including many women and children, who were killed in cold blood. I once again utterly condemn the use of sexual violence, torture, injuring and kidnapping of civilians, the firing of rockets towards civilian targets, and the use of human shields. “
Concerning Palestinians, the Secretary-General stated:
“When the gates to aid are closed, the doors to starvation are opened”
But Mr. Secretary-General, the gates of aid are not closed. It is Israel that is blocking them.
“More than half the population – over a million people – are facing catastrophic hunger.”
But, Mr. Secretary-General, it’s not that the 2 million Palestinians are simply facing a disastrous famine. The reality is that Israel is deliberately starving them right under the world’s watchful eyes.
“Children in Gaza today are dying for lack of food and water.”
But Mr. Secretary-General, the cause of Palestinian children’s deaths is not a deficiency of water. Israel intentionally cut off any water supply to Gaza with the sole aim of killing more Palestinians.
“This is incomprehensible, and entirely avoidable.”
But Mr. Secretary-General, what is incomprehensible is how, after six months, you are quietly acknowledging the demise of diplomacy instead of denouncing the brutal killing of Palestinians.
Diplomacy which alongside the United Nations, has become at best amoral.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the United Nations appears to show less concern with the innovative and savage methods of exterminating the Palestinians. More worryingly, any remaining vestiges of the principles of international humanitarian law seemed to have been killed along the way.
Instead, when asked yesterday about the UN’s role on the temporary pier that the US is constructing in Gaza, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson proudly stated that the UN “will support any plan to increase the delivery of aid, whether by sea, air, or, of course, most importantly, by land.”
Isn’t it baffling how the Secretary-General couldn’t manage to convince the US and Israel to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people for a half-year, yet a US-built pier in Gaza, allegedly aimed at preserving Palestinian lives, is nearing completion?
When it comes to the prominent influence of the U.S. on the United Nations, one needs only look at the legislation enacted by Presidents G. Bush and Bill Clinton.
This US law unequivocally prohibits any form of financial assistance to any international organization that recognizes Palestine as a full member. This dear reader, is the chief reason that the bid for Palestine’s full membership in the UN hasn’t been successful and will never be.
This implies that if the United Nations Security Council ever approves Palestine’s full membership, the US, which is the largest contributor to the UN, is legally bound to retract its 27% assessed contributions.
That is why the Secretary-General’s statements always start by reminding the world that we ought to condemn the 7th of October attacks and mourn those killed by Hamas while hinting that Palestinians could also be facing a mysterious famine…
The 7th of April in the UN also marked the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and the Secretary-General made sure to issue another remarkable statement:
“We will never forget the victims of this genocide. Nor will we ever forget the bravery and resilience of those who survived, whose courage and willingness to forgive remain a burst of light and hope amidst this dark chapter in human history.
Let’s ensure that the acts that began on April 7, 1994 are never forgotten — and never repeated. Anywhere.”
Yet Mr. Secretary-General, every day, every hour, every minute, every second, Palestinians are being killed in their own land. It is called Palestine. And the world is watching in silence. In cowardice.
The Secretary-General is, of course, not directly responsible for the killings of Palestinians. He, however, takes the path of least resistance and continues to offer a plethora of rationalizations and lies to conceal his cowardice and chiefly to preserve the US funding for the United Nations.
In doing so, the Secretary-General has effectively undermined any lasting faith in the virtue of multilateralism and the ethical grounding of diplomacy.
The recent strategic move by Israel, the US, and various other Western nations to defund UNRWA is nothing but a well-orchestrated move to dismantle the Un Agency, in the mistaken confidence that doing so would somehow erase the inalienable right of return that Palestinians claim.
The deja vu crisis of defunding is about much more than just financial support and the provision of aid for humanitarian purposes.
Don’t let yourself be led astray by misguided perspectives.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that UNRWA owns registration documents, historical archives, and substantial evidence collection, which includes more than half a million varied materials such as negatives, prints, slides, films, videocassettes, documents, and even original ownership papers. All these materials comprehensively cover the life experiences and the extensive history of Palestinian refugees right from 1948 to the present times.
UNRWA stands as undeniable evidence of Palestine’s rightful belonging to the Palestinian people.
Palestinians, once the hosts to Jews on their land, have since been faced with the stark reality of their lands being claimed. Jewish immigrants then commenced a 75-year long battle of colonization against Palestine.
The issue at hand extends far beyond the confines of humanitarian aid and services.
The US and Israel are seeking to redefine what it means to be a Palestinian refugee. By attempting to defund UNRWA, Israel and the US are not only seeking to cut humanitarian aid or to collectively punish Palestinians.
Rather, their ambitious goal is to eliminate the right of return for 5.5 million Palestinian refugees by abolishing UNRWA, which maintains the refugees’ registration services.
Their goal is however, based on a fundamental misconception.
International law grants refugee status to children of other refugee populations until they return to their permanent homes. Homes that were stolen by Israeli occupation and the land that Israel occupied.
For over a decade, UNRWA has been continuously under attack, with the US and Israeli governments spearheading crisis after crisis, most notably during Trump’s 2018 campaign to defund UNRWA.
The character assassination of UNRWA employees has been a persistent aim of Israel, with a string of baseless allegations against UNRWA in the past.
For instance, in 2014, Israel used a drone video to falsely accuse two UNRWA staff members of smuggling Hamas missiles in an ambulance. It turned out they were only moving a stretcher in the ambulance.
Why should the world continue to believe Israel after its propaganda of 40 beheaded babies was used to fuel the monstrous killing and dismembering of more than 13000 Palestinian children and babies?
In the span of two decades of my service in the United Nations globally, I have never encountered neutrality breaches, save for when I was working for UNRWA or when Israeli blogs were involved.
That’s primarily because the so called neutrality breaches are fueled by Israel’s persistent attempts to dismantle UNRWA. This constant assault on UNRWA by pro-Zionist blogs results in the US administration being inundated with false claims against UNRWA staff. This, in turn, initiates a cycle of crises centered on breaches of impartiality, ultimately leading to repeated financial cuts.
The US administration and these zionist blogs are not the only culprits.
The fact that UNRWA largely depends on funds from the US and Western nations leads to senior executives being appointed from these countries.
The current Commissioner General hails from Switzerland and has dual citizenship with Italy, while the two deputy Commissioner Generals are from the USA and France. The other director posts are held by individuals from Germany and the UK. Given these influences, it hardly comes as a surprise that all these nations have hastily halted their financial support for UNRWA.
The latest debacle surfaced when Israeli officials requested the UNRWA Commissioner-General to abruptly terminate the contracts of 12 staff members, whom Israel accused of involvement in the attacks on October 7th. This would undoubtedly be considered a neutrality breach and perhaps even a criminal act.
From our inside sources, we’ve learned that the Commissioner-General of UNRWA instructed his team to announce the termination of those 12 staff members precisely at the same time as the International Court of Justice’s session on Friday, 26 January, which was passing an Order against Israel. The calculated timing aimed to soften the blow of the order from ICJ on Israeli authorities. The UNRWA CG put a 24-hour hold on his Communications Department following his statement.
“The Israeli Authorities have provided UNRWA with information about the alleged involvement of several UNRWA employees in the horrific attacks on Israel on 7 October. I have taken the decision to immediately terminate the contracts of these staff members and launch an investigation in order to establish the truth without delay. Any UNRWA employee who was involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.”
Some violations should be highlighted in the Commissioner-General’s statement.
First, a disturbing fact is how the Commissioner-General seemingly took instructions from the Israeli authorities. This act contravenes the standards of conduct set for international civil service. Most importantly, it raises questions about the impartiality expected from international civil servants.
“If the impartiality of the international civil service is to be maintained, international civil servants must remain independent of any authority outside their organization; their conduct must reflect that independence. In keeping with their oath of office, they should not seek nor should they accept instructions from any Government, person or entity external to the organization.”
Despite the UN rules and regulations, the Commissioner-General swiftly ended contracts without launching an investigation, thereby violating the concerned staff’s fundamental right to due process.
The Office of Investigations (OIOS) is put in a tight spot as it can no longer conduct an impartial and lawful investigation. Former staff members are under no obligation to cooperate with the OIOS, making the process even more challenging.
Instead of rushing to terminate their contracts, the Commissioner-General had the option to first suspend the staff without pay, followed by an impartial investigation. His haste in terminating their contracts — even before commencing an investigation — hints at his attempt to appease the Israeli authorities, thereby breaching the standards of impartiality outlined by the International Civil Service’s code of conduct.
It’s important to remember that allegations must be proven and substantiated.
A recent UNRWA judgment issued on 31 December 2023 highlights the eagerness of the Agency to always appease the Israeli authorities by taking disciplinary measures against UNRWA staff regardless of the case’s merits. This case involved a breach of neutrality. The Judge found that the CG imposed a serious miscounted disciplinary measure on an UNRWA staff allegedly because he was a teacher (as reported by the Israeli NGO) when it turned out that he was not one. The UNRWA Tribunal found in favor of the UNRWA staff and reversed the disciplinary measure.
One day after the CG issued his statement on the termination of contracts, Western European countries declared their solidarity by freezing their financial aid to UNRWA. An unwanted consequence or a planned one?
Equally interesting was the reaction of the Secretary-General who expressed his horror at allegations against UNRWA staff. Yet, he has strangely not used the same term to describe the tragic death of 32,000 Palestinians, including the killing and dismemberment of over 13000 children.
Fear? Or sheer hypocrisy?
As to the EU, on the day of the ICJ order on 26 January 2024, it issued a statement reaffirming its continuing support to the International Court of Justice and reminding the parties that ICJ orders were binding and that they must comply with them.
Within days of the ICJ order, the EU took an abrupt U-turn, suspending its funding for UNRWA and demanding a review of all employees. Clearly, concerns for the integrity of their assistance do not match the reality on the ground. To make things stranger, the EU requested a review of all UNRWA employees (30,000 people) to verify that they were not involved in the attacks.
In the span of two days, the majority of Western donors had announced they were freezing funding based on a recycled “40 beheaded babies allegation” unseen by anyone, without any evidence and any sort of investigation into the matter.
Would these countries dare to withhold funds and weapons sale to Israel for the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, UN schools, health clinics and UN shelters in Gaza?
Today, hundreds of aid trucks are deployed at the Rafah border, with Israel blocking the delivery of essential humanitarian aid. The Palestinians wage a battle for survival, while the world watches in silence.
Israel’s recent decision to declare the Kerem Shalom crossing a closed military zone is leading to a deadly famine.
Israel is subjecting Palestinians to forced starvation, and the international community is observing in silence.
It is thus clear that the humanitarian crisis will persist even if funds were not suspended.
The truth is confronting: we’re witnessing an American-Western led production aimed at more than just funds or humanitarian aid.
This narrative seeks to shift focus from the ICJ order and set UNRWA—often synonymously associated with Palestinians—as the scapegoat. If UNRWA is guilty, all Palestinians must be deemed guilty, or so the story goes.
Given these unfounded allegations, the conversation now centers around UNRWA staff being implicated in acts of violence, further dehumanizing entire Palestinian communities and validating their genocide.
The message that Israel wishes to convey is that killing Palestinians is within its rights.
Led by Israel, a new wave of misinformation seeks to shift global narratives away from the injustices meted out to Palestinians. Such a scenario can only engender the opposite of goodwill and further erode the moral leadership of the Global North in the Middle East.
To the Global North we say: UNRWA does not need your funding.
It needs you to comply with the International Court of Justice’s order by requesting Israel to stop its violence, open the humanitarian corridors and stop the bloodshed.
Cutting funding to UNRWA at this critical juncture is nothing less than a brand new Laissez- Passer to prolong the genocide against the Palestinian people.
But one thing is certain: no amount of money will convince the millions of Palestinian refugees to give up their profound and enduring attachment to their homeland.
To the Global North, we say:
Defund as you May, the Right of Return will Never Cease to Exist,
Yesterday, the Secretary-General issued a statement on Gaza that began with a lengthy paragraph that condemned Hamas and highlighted the suffering of the Israeli people in great detail. However, throughout the two-page discourse, the name of Israel was seemingly forgotten, not even a single mention.
The Security Council is occupied by Western powers, which has rendered it paralyzed.
If you believe the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is independent, I invite you to reconsider.
Let’s take the ongoing case of South Africa versus Israel as an example. Instead of letting the Judges preside with objectivity and devoid of political influence, some Western Nations can’t seem to resist tampering. Bracing for a potential ruling favoring Palestine, Germany has jumped the gun and publicly backed Israel, even before the proceedings have concluded.
Just imagine the pressure that Germany’s judge in the ICJ, Georg Nolte, would be under, feeling the weight of his responsibilities and the difficult decisions he must make.
Then there’s the story of the United States. It chose to step away from the mandatory jurisdiction of the court in 1986, following a ruling indicating the US was obligated to pay war reparations to Nicaragua. Notably, the ICJ’s current President, Joan E. Donoghue, hails from the United States.
Donoghue says she does not see herself as a representative of the United States to the court. On the eve of The Hague proceedings, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called the genocide allegations “unfounded,” adding, “That’s not a word that ought to be thrown around lightly, and we certainly don’t believe that it applies here. “
Then you have France and Australia, who are also currently sitting on the ICJ, and we know their positions too well.
If you think these judges are independent, think again.
The insidious tentacles of racism and discrimination have infiltrated every corner of the United Nations’ work, revealing an alarming surge in recent years.
If you’re seeking a real-life illustration of entrenched discrimination and ingrained racism, consider how UN staff who hail from nations in the Global North interact with those from the Global South. A quick look at this scenario highlights the glaring disparity between staff from the Global North and those from the Global South at the United Nations.
Supporting evidence isn’t hard to find when you dig into the decisions handed down by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. These rulings paint a worrying picture.
Take, for instance, the recent case of Theunens vs. Secretary-General, UNDT/2023/145. Released just a week ago, its detailed records provide a disturbing glimpse into the pervasive patterns of racism and discrimination that UN staff from the Global South are forced to endure day in and day out.
This judgment relates to a senior Belgian staff member working with UNIFIL. UNIFIL is the UN’s peacekeeping mission, tasked with verifying the retreat of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and aiding the Lebanese Government in reclaiming its crucial authority over the region.
Contained within the UNDT judgment’s hefty 82 pages, is a chilling depiction of rampant racism, discrimination, misconduct, harassment, and a blatant abuse of authority. It’s the alleged wrongdoings of a Belgian senior staff member (Chief of Joint Military Analysis Centre – JMAC), directed at his Lebanese subordinates, that spanned across a disturbing long stretch of 10 years, from 2010 all the way through to 2020.
There seemed to be no effort to rectify this glaring issue.
Allow me to draw your attention to a particularly striking instance of this evident discrimination and prejudice: the prohibition enforced on two native Lebanese staff members, Mr. El-Sibai and Ms. El-Joubeili, by their Belgian superior.
The Belgian Chief strictly forbade them from conversing in their mother tongue, Arabic, while their international counterparts were granted the liberty to communicate in their native languages like German, French, and so on.
Hold that thought if you believe such an event couldn’t possibly involve a United Nations employee. The next one might just raise your eyebrows a bit more.
An incident involving the Belgian Chief of JMAC threw racial prejudices of the Global North under sharp light when he introduced two Lebanese national staff members to his French deputy.
Instead of introducing them by their respective names Mohamed and Christine and recognizing their important roles as research assistants, the Belgian Chief had a shocking habit of introducing them by their religion as “‘Mohamad the Shia Muslim and Christine the Christian’”
Even for someone like me who has worked for 20 years with the UN worldwide, this is difficult to accept and understand.
It seems there’s a jarring reveal of the Global North’s real countenance unveiling nothing less than the epitome of racism.
Discrimination seeping to the very deep of everything.
Mr. El-Sibai the Lebanese national staff testified to the UN Tribunal that the atmosphere under the senior Belgian staff, was “hell” and that the Belgian’s Chief’s behavior was very intimidating,
“as if he was still in the army or as if we were in Guantanamo or prison. For some unknown reason there was always this division—two camps, the Arab speakers and the international colleagues. The Chief preferred to deal with the international colleagues more “than dealing with us.”
A third senior staff witness testified that he left UNIFIL because of the Belgian Chief JMAC and that “he had knocked at all the doors within UNIFIL, and nobody wanted to hear it, including the leadership”.
Dismantling systems of Western oppression, including colonization, is undeniably complex.
When examined by the Judge during the hearing, the Belgian Chief JMAC admitted:
that many military people and especially those, I mean my Deputies from France, they have a view on Lebanon, and they have a view on Christians and they have a view on Muslims, whether we like it or not.”
In echoing his colonial sentiments, he was quoted saying:
“I may be misinformed by my experience, but I think in a country with internal issues, it is difficult for a citizen – not a citizen, but a person from that country to be objective.”
Could it be that the privilege of critical and objective thinking has been bestowed primarily upon those dwelling in the Global North, while it eludes the majority of the remaining world?
The Global North’s objective mind is indeed so evident in its refusal to acknowledge and condemn the 24 hour live broadcast of the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian people – a practice shared by countries including Germany, the US, the UK, and Canada.
In her testimony to the Judge, Ms. El-Joubeili, the Lebanese national staff said:
“It was a nightmare to summarize those awful years spent in JMAC. It was a nightmare.
I had to cope with following psychotherapy, which helped me stay strong and not fall into the trap of the harassment, the abuse of authority, the intimidation, discrimination, all those awful bullying…
It was really toxic and unhealthy. It wasn’t at all the environment I was expecting in an international organization as the United Nations…
Nine years we paid from our health–mental health, physical health. Nine years were too long, way too long really.
It is so enraging, so revolting to have to go through all this for that long without being heard. I know these are the worst years of my life. Nine years in JMAC with the Chief are the worst years of my life.”
Essentially, the gripe against the Chief JMAC revolved around his establishment of a work environment that was oppressive, discriminatory and brimming with harassment. Moreover, he wielded his power in an abusive manner.
Every single charge against him checked out; normally, in such circumstances, termination should have been the least disciplinary action.
However, the outcome for the Chief JMAC saw him demoted by just one grade level. Instead of the door being shown to him, he was reassigned to a new role as a senior political affairs officer in the office of UNIFIL’s Head of Mission — the most influential position in UNIFIL.
It seems more like he hit a career advancement jackpot.
Why would a senior staff member, convicted on charges of discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority, continue to serve with UNIFIL in Lebanon, a highly volatile political battlefield? The answer is right in front of us.
Could it be that he gets to keep his position because he has the advantage of Belgian nationality? Or is it possibly due to the unfortunate reality that the United Nations is indeed internally colonized?
Not yet convinced?
Keep reading to uncover more.
In a recent judgment, the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal upheld management’s decision to terminate a previous Chief of Security Operations and Analysis, cited in the judgment ElMenshawy UNRWA/DT/2023/034. Notably, ElMenshawy hails from the Global South and is an Arab.
His immediate superior, the Director of Security, hailed from the Global North.
Our Arab Chief found himself in hot water, slapped with accusations of:
1) Casting a shadow of doubt on his direct supervisor’s integrity, a gentleman from Britain;
2) Being a source of distress for his co-worker within the Security Department;
3) Curating an environment within the Security Department that can only be described as hostile.
The Arab Chief ElMenshawy found himself abruptly ousted from his position and faced with the stark reality of termination as a disciplinary measure for his actions.
Compare this example to the Belgian Chief, who, for a protracted decade, wielded his power recklessly, intimidated, and discriminated against Arab staff. Was his punishment as harsh? No.
The Belgian Chief was merely demoted and reassigned to provide leadership in the Head of Mission office, a prestigious role. One may wonder about the seeming disparity.
One thing is certain.
To reform the United Nations, it is necessary to decolonize it first.
As the year draws to a close, people started to exchange end-of-year reflections, New Year’s resolutions, and heartfelt New Year greetings for 2024 across various social media platforms.
But one Palestinian journalist in Gaza Hind Khoudari, who had been reporting non stop from the Gaza Strip had a different end-of-year message:
She tweeted:
“I never thought I would be tweeting begging the world for sanitary products.
NEVER in my life thought I would be here.”
“Guys, I am serious bring in carefree and daily liners into Gaza. There has been no liners in Gaza for more than a month now.”
Uncomfortable.
Awkward.
Truth
That is the reality of women and young girls in Gaza.
A topic that is often overlooked and stigmatized. No one wants to talk about the consequences of Israel’s blockade on Gaza women and their menstruation.
A month ago, journalist Roudayna Raydan reported about the dire living conditions in overcrowded shelters and widespread displacement in the Gaza strip, that are forcing Gaza women to resort to unconventional measures to delay their menstrual cycle.
Women and girls in Gaza are turning to Norethisterone, a medication typically prescribed for severe menstrual pain, heavy bleeding, and endometriosis, that is now being used as a means of delaying menstruation.
In her article, Roudayna reports that:
“The dire circumstances coupled with trauma stemming from the conflict have a severe impact on the women and girls in Gaza including an increased likelihood of urinary tract infections, childbirth complications, and transmission of infections such as hepatitis B and thrush due to neglecting hand cleanliness as a part of product change practices.
The inadequate provision of hygiene supplies in Gaza exposes women and girls to diseases and infections while also undermining their dignity.”
In moments such as when Hind Khoudari poignantly poses questions towards global feminists on Twitter or when Roudayna Raydan pens a comprehensive article highlighting the gravity of the situation, one can’t help but wonder – where does UN Women stand amidst all this?
Well, if you must ask, besides having a grandiose campaign to end the menstruation stigma around the world, they are currently busy investigating and possibly preparing to fire a dedicated senior UNWomen staffer, Sarah Douglas, who has been tweeting in support of Palestinians and against the Israeli genocide since the start of the Gaza war.
One may ask why?
An Israeli blog launched a campaign and a petition demanding that Sarah Douglas be fired and lobbied with two American senators to fire her, calling her a “terrorist sympathizer”. Thus the Israeli propaganda machine unleashed its wrath on her.
Mr. Secretary-General,
UNWomen Chief, Ms. Sima Bahous,
How can you uphold the dignity of women in Gaza when you’re incapable of doing the same for your own staff at the United Nations?
When you are incapable of protecting your own UN staff?
When all you do is succumb to the Israeli disinformation, propaganda, and hate speech campaigns?
When the wave of misrepresentation and deceitful narratives against Sarah Douglas is essentially because she is married to a Palestinian individual?
UN Women:
Do you want to end the stigma: could you start by protecting your own staff.
#UNWomen
It’s time align your actions to your declarations.
In the bustling neighborhood of Khan Yunis, tucked away in the heart of Gaza, a little girl was born. She was raised amidst the doting love of her father (her baba), nurturing mother, and caring siblings – her universe, confined within the simplicity of their humble dwelling.
Each week, following the Friday prayer, they would journey together towards the Gaza sea, each step a cherished ritual. Their faith and love for one another resonating with each echo of the call to prayer.
The young girl had a strong and affectionate bond with her baba. She would often playfully act like she was drowning, enticing him to come into the water to save her, tapping into his natural instinct to protect her. Her tiny hands would then grip tightly onto her baba’s sturdy arms as he hoisted her high into the endless azure of the Gaza sky. She adored the feel of the grainy sand under her feet and the sea’s cool graze on her skin, dancing around and stirring ripples in the water that mirrored her happiness.
Little did she know that her beloved Gaza was an open-air prison, isolated and confined for over a decade. Beyond the imposing walls that marked its borders lay a world unseen and unknown to her – a world she was forcefully barred from ever discovering.
On weekdays, she proudly carried her pink school bag and walked with her siblings through the narrow alleys of Khan Yunis. She loved going to school and dreamed of becoming a teacher. She spent hours in front of the chalkboard, drawing big letters of the alphabet, flowers, and hearts delicately sketched in her favorite shades of pastel pink and blue.
On her way home, she often stopped by her favorite local candy store. The colorful array of sweets mesmerized her, but her eyes always turned toward the pastel-colored candy rolls. They reminded her of her dreams, her pastel-colored dreams.
With a one-shekel coin her baba had given her that morning, she asked the Ammo for two candy rolls, despite having only enough money for one.
Admiring her beautifully tressed hair and the pink and blue pastel hairclips adorning her curls, the candy shop owner offered her two candy rolls: one she could enjoy that day and the other, he said, she could save for a time when hunger struck, and there was nothing else to eat. The little girl looked at him with surprise but was overjoyed with the two candy rolls in her tiny hands.
Bouncing with happiness, she hurried back home and eagerly showed her baba the gift from the candy shop. Slowly unwrapping the candy roll, savoring each pink, green, and blue candy, admiring their colors before tasting them. As she finished, she carefully hid the second candy roll under her mattress, saving it for another day. That night, she drifted off to sleep, dreaming of a beautiful blue sky and a pastel-colored rainbow filled with butterflies.
But when morning came, she was abruptly awakened by thunder-like sounds that shook the air. She rushed to her baba, seeking comfort in his arms. Her father calmed her down and assured her that everything would be okay.
The loud sounds continued for days, and the vibrant colors outside began to fade into shades of gray. The blue sky of Gaza vanished, replaced by a somber and bleak atmosphere. The windows of their tiny house shattered and she could no longer see any beautiful colors outside.
It was Friday again; she could hear the call of the noon prayer. She ran to her baba, pleading to go to the sea once more. Her mum had given her a small portion of bread and two olives but she was still hungry.
Her baba told her: “Remember your candy roll? Go bring it. Maybe we could go to the sea in the afternoon when the loud sounds stop?”
Her baba knew the sounds would not stop. He knew he couldn’t take his little daughter to the Gaza sea again.
He wanted to tell her the story of Palestine, the story of Gaza: A story of resistance and liberation.
The little girl returned running to her father, proudly showing him the unopened candy roll in her hand. Her baba looked at her: “Eat the candy roll now before we head out to the sea.”
But the little girl refused. She wanted to open the candy roll by the Gaza sea. Her father nodded, promising to take her soon.
So she held tight to the candy roll and rolled in her baba’s arms. For a while, everything went quiet.
Eventually, she drifted off to sleep, still clutching the unopened candy roll, dreaming of the day when she would return to the sea.
(in memory of the Palestinian Girl who died with a Candy Roll in her hand killed by an Israeli strike on 20 December 2023 in Khan Younis. With thanks to the Original Artwork and Illustration by @fatima_illustrations @Fatima_khayyat )
A brief while before the onset of the new Gaza war on October 7, heads of state conveyed promising declarations at the 78th United Nations General Assembly.
Unbeknownst to them, just a few days later, a devastating Genocide would tragically unfold on the Palestinian people in the Gaza strip.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s earnest endeavor in the General Assembly was to persuade the audience of his nation’s commitment to peace and progress in human rights:
“I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians.
See, the Palestinians are only 2% of the Arab world.
The Palestinians must abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.
Let me show you a map of the Middle East in 1948, the year Israel was established.
Here is Israel in 1948. It’s a tiny country, isolated, surrounded by a hostile Arab world.
For peace to prevail, the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew-hatred and finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel. “
Judging by this morning’s obliteration of 56 residential structures and an entire community in the Northeast Gaza locality of Shujaiya, one might infer Israel is indeed steadily progressing toward its horrendous ambition: to kill the remaining 2% of the Arab Palestinian population.
Perhaps by doing so, Israel may finally achieve inner and lasting peace. With an insatiable thirst for blood, it seems that Israel will not rest until it kills every Palestinian.
And so, the Genocide continues… to an extent that Martin Griffith, the head of OCHA, made a statement yesterday that – Gaza may need a special tribunal to investigate Israel’s atrocities.
As for President Biden, addressing the General Assembly, he said the international community needed “to be able to break the gridlock that too often blocks consensus on the security council.”
Break the gridlock?
There is nothing blocking the gridlock like the US is.
Blocking consensus?
There is no one killing the consensus like the U.S is.
President Biden further cautioned the international community that:
“Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence.
But I ask you this: if we abandon the core principles of the UN charter to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?
We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow”
Indeed, the USA effectively put a stop to it.
From October 7th onward, the USA utilized its veto power to reject any General Assembly and Security Council resolutions aimed at even temporarily halting the ongoing massacre.
It almost appears as if the US administration is comfortable with the idea of Israel wiping out Palestinians with impunity, under the assumption that global attention will eventually fade.
And so the Genocide goes on….
As for the European Union, it has put forward a robust proposition for reform of the Security Council and its veto power. According to them, this power was being misused, leading to a stalemate within the Security Council.
The European Union astutely highlighted the inherent conflict of interest when a P5 nation holds the capacity to veto a resolution aiming to impose sanctions against it. This observation strikes a chord of sound logic.
Emphasizing the conflict of interest, the European Union backed an initiative proposed by France and Mexico to restrict the veto power during mass atrocities.
In retrospect, however, this proposal was designed specifically with Russia in mind rather than genuinely with the aim of reforming the Security Council.
If we apply the same rationale, the United States should arguably be the first to lose its veto right, considering Israel’s conflict in Gaza is fully subsidized by the USA.
The US administration has extended $14 billion in direct military aid to Israel, which includes vast quantities of bombs and tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells. Unfortunately, these munitions continue to be directly used to kill and maim thousands of Palestinian children.
If President Biden’s statement holds any weight, the United States should cease using its veto to block cease-fire demands and promptly put a halt to its military aid to Israel, given the significant role that US weapons and military aid play in prolonging the ongoing massacre.
And so the Genocide lives on…
While on the topic, Australia pointedly censured Russia’s manipulative ploys on food security, ones that accoring to them resulted in “millions left hungry”
It seems that the Australian government currently finds it acceptable that 2 million Palestinians lack fundamental life necessities such as food, water, electricity, and basic healthcare. Apparently, the plight of hunger among Palestinians escapes Australia’s view, along with the notion that Israel is employing food deprivation as an illegal weapon in this war.
As to the Secretary-General, he drew the international community’s attention to a crucial principle:
“When countries break the Charter’s pledge for peace, they create a world of insecurity for everyone.
Exhibit A: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The war, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, has unleashed a nexus of horror: lives destroyed; human rights abused; families torn apart; children traumatized; hopes and dreams shattered. “
Mr. Secretary-General,
We present you Exhibit B: Israel’s Genocide against Palestinian People.
A nexus of horror:
Children killed.
Journalists killed.
Doctors killed.
Health care professionals killed.
Professors killed.
Caretakers killed.
Disabled people killed.
Poets killed.
Mothers killed.
Fathers killed.
Animals killed.
Human rights Killed.
Families Killed.
Children traumatized.
Hopes and dreams Killed..
Mr. Secretary-General,
We present you Exhibit B:
The Killing of Palestine by the International Community
In the year following the tragic 2003 suicide attack in Baghdad, a devastating event that claimed the lives of 22 United Nations personnel, including the Secretary-General’s envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations established the UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
The United Nations Department for Safety and Security (UNDSS) currently operates under the guidance of an Under-Secretary-General, Gilles Michaud. His chief responsibilities revolve around ensuring the safety and security of United Nations personnel, as well as the security of United Nations premises in accordance with the United Nations Security Management System (UNSMS).
Since October 7th, 2023, a disheartening reality has surfaced. Over 130 local Palestinian staff from UNRWA have tragically fallen victim to Israeli acts.
The Secretary-General conveyed his sorrow, stating, “We’ve never experienced such a significant loss in the entire history of our organization.” The weight of his words underscores the severity of this crisis.
Meanwhile, the UNRWA Commissioner-General (CG) and Spokesperson hold firm to their narrative that “No Place is Safe in Gaza.”
It’s indeed true that the reckless, inhumane bombings by Israel have turned the Gaza Strip into a danger zone. However, this narrative also cleverly veils the disappointing shortcomings of the UN Security Management System (UNSMS), the Secretary-General, and the UNRWA Commissioner-General.
More than 130 of my colleagues have already been killed, many with their families.
This is the largest single loss of life in the history of our Organization.
Some of our staff take their children to work so they know they will live or die together.
Colleagues have shared heartbreaking messages from staff members pleading for help.
The Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Safety and Security has advised me that all possible means of mitigating the risk to staff within Gaza, short of evacuation, are closed off, because of the way this conflict has evolved.
Is it possible that the Secretary-General willingly turns a blind eye to the shortcomings of his top officials? Or perhaps he is misled by false information? Regardless, his final proclamation appears to be bereft of any substantial grounding.
The claim that no effective measures exist to lessen the risk faced by UNRWA Palestinian staff in Gaza isn’t accurate.
The United Nations Security Management System and the UN Security Policy Manual state that the policies apply to “All United Nations system staff members, including temporary staff, in posts subject to international or local recruitment.”
Potential risk mitigation measures existed, yet they were left unused.
Picture this: Over the past ten years, United Nations staff around the world have been incorporated into the UN Security Management System. Yet, there has been a consistent and systemic exclusion of the UNRWA Palestinian local staff from this system. This is the reality of the discrimination being faced by these Palestinian members of the UN staff.
Upon analyzing the report, particularly the section concerning security incidents affecting UNRWA’s area personnel, you’ll find an intriguing footnote 9 that deserves careful reading:
“9. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) area personnel are not covered by the United Nations security management system. “
There it is.
The elusive part of the enigma.
The United Nations Security Management System (UNSMS) doesn’t incorporate UNRWA Palestinian staff into its security management policies.
The guidelines of the United Nations Security Management System (UNSMS) stipulate that local staff members of the UNRWA should ideally be moved to a safe haven within their duty station; this is where the international staff currently based in Gaza are housed.
UNRWA Palestinian staff have not been relocated.
Under this UNSMS, UNRWA should have immediately carried out a head count of the Palestinian local staff. They were unable to do so, and there was none.
Presently, UNRWA has been unsuccessful in furnishing up-to-date, precise data concerning the count of their Palestinian staff members who have been injured or lost their lives.
According to the UNSMS system, the expectation was that UNRWA would move eligible Palestinian staff from the UN, along with their family members, to a safer location near the Rafah border. Additionally, they should have been provided a daily subsistence allowance for themselves and their dependents.
Further, to be eligible for coverage under the Malicious Act Insurance Policy (M.A.I.P), it’s necessary to be included in the UN Security Management System.
In accordance with the provisions set out by the M.A.I.P, families grieving the loss of UNRWA Palestinian staff who tragically lost their lives in Gaza should have received compensation totaling about 120,000 USD. However, the reality unfolds in a starkly different manner. The Commissioner-General of UNRWA ended up providing a meager sum of 300 USD to each affected UNRWA staff member. Furthermore, the bereaved families were considered for a compensatory amount of just 3000 USD, a fraction of the original amount they were entitled to – 120,000 USD.
The truth is that it’s not the intricate facets of the conflict that result in a lack of risk-mitigation strategies for local UNRWA staff, as suggested by the Secretary-General. Rather, the root lies in the core failures at the very top of the UN hierarchy. These Palestinian staff members are excluded from the UN Security Management System, and it certainly isn’t because of how the conflict has unfolded over time.
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023, the UNRWA Commissioner-General expressed remarks to the Agency’s Advisory Committee and said:
“…regarding the exclusion of national staff from insurance coverage… he stated that this issue was closely analyzed to see if it could be addressed and that it would have enormous cost implications if it was applied to the Agency, given that most expenses were covered by extrabudgetary resources.”(excerpt from official minutes of the meeting).
The facts are clearly laid out.
It seems as though the UN is treating the lives of the UNRWA Palestinian staff as less valuable compared to their other staff members. This might be why the UN hasn’t deemed it necessary to pursue measures to alleviate risks faced by the UNRWA Palestinian staff.
Evidence is pointing towards an alarming trend of bias and discrimination leveled against UNRWA Palestinian employees – a situation that decidedly necessitates an end.
The lapses shown by the United Nations in safeguarding their Palestinian staff within the UN warrant a thorough investigation.
The UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) was created one year after the 2003 suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed 22 UN staff, including the organization’s representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
UNDSS is currently led by an Under Secretary-General (Gilles Michaud). He is responsible for the safety, security, and well-being of personnel and the security of United Nations premises per the United Nations Security Management System (UNSMS).
Israel has killed more than 130 Palestinian local staff of UNRWA since October 7th.
As the Secretary-General said, ‘This is the largest single loss of life in the history of our organization.’
The UNRWA Commissioner-General (CG) and Spokesperson insist on their side of the story that “No Place is Safe in Gaza.”
It is widely accepted that the immoral, indiscriminate bombing by Israel renders the Gaza Strip unsafe. However, that version disguises in reality the failures of the UN Security Management System (UNSMS), those of the Secretary-General and the UNRWA CG.
More than 130 of my colleagues have already been killed, many with their families.
This is the largest single loss of life in the history of our Organization.
Some of our staff take their children to work so they know they will live or die together.
Colleagues have shared heartbreaking messages from staff members pleading for help.
The Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Safety and Security has advised me that all possible means of mitigating the risk to staff within Gaza, short of evacuation, are closed off, because of the way this conflict has evolved.
The last sentence is not true at all. Either the Secretary-General is concealing the shortcomings of his senior management, or he is receiving misleading information.
How can the USG/DSS advise on possible means of mitigating the risk to staff within Gaza when the UNRWA Palestinian local staff were never included in the UN Security Management System?
Mr. Secretary General,
It is not true that there are no ways to mitigate the risk to staff within Gaza. There were possible means, but they were not implemented.
This is because UNRWA Palestinian local staff are systemically and unfairly excluded from the UN Security Management System that applies to all UN staff worldwide.
On page 12 of that report, (Section 2) footnote 9 reads:
“9. United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) area personnel are not covered by the United Nations security management system. “
Here it is.
Presented before the General Assembly.
In your own words and those of the Secretary-General:
The UN Security Management System does not cover UNRWA Palestinian local staff.
“All United Nations system staff members, including temporary staff, in posts subject to international or local recruitment.”
Under the UNSMS, the UNRWA local staff should have been relocated to a safe haven within the duty station (base of International staff currently in Gaza).
They were not, hence the large number of UNRWA Palestinian fatalities.
Under this system, UNRWA should have immediately carried out a head count of the Palestinian local staff. They were unable to do so, and there was none.
There are no possible means of mitigation risk for UNRWA local staff due to the failures of the entire UN senior leadership to include those staff under the UNSMS.
On Tuesday, 21 November 2023, UNRWA CG, addressing the Advisory Committee of the Agency, stated
“…regarding the exclusion of national staff from insurance coverage… he stated that this issue was closely analyzed to see if it could be addressed and that it would have enormous cost implications if it was applied to the Agency, given that most expenses were covered by extrabudgetary resources.” (excerpt from official minutes of the meeting).
There it is in plain words.
UNRWA Palestinian lives are cheaper than the rest of the UN staff, which may explain why the UN didn’t find it fitting to explore measures to mitigate risk for those staff.
The Secretary-General did not dare to use the word Genocide to describe the 24-hour live Israeli eradication of Palestinian babies and children in Gaza. According to his spokesman, it’s not up to the SG to determine this, but to the legal entities of the United Nations.
So, the ICC prosecutor, Mr. Karim Khan, was honored by an Elon Musk-like visit organized by Israel. Even though he was invited to visit Gaza to verify Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people, the ICC prosecutor chose to settle for the Israeli version.
Mukesh Kapila wrote an article recently to persuade readers that Israel’s mass atrocities in Gaza cannot be classified as Genocide.
According to him, “the destructive ferocity of the Israeli action in Gaza cannot, by itself, be designated as genocidal.”
That is incorrect.
Article II of the Convention defines Genocide as ANY of the following acts ANY of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national or ethnical as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Israel exceeded all the thresholds above by far.
Thus, Israel is committing a GENOCIDE.
Mr. Kapila further contends that if Israel wanted to eliminate Gazans “…we would not expect it to send warning messages to civilians to exit military operation areas, nor to accept evacuation routes or agree to humanitarian ceasefire and relief provision.”
Warning message?
Even Reuters was quoted stating: “Israel orders Gazans to flee, bombs where it sends them.”
Mind you, Israel has just declared the UN Humanitarian Coordinator Lynn Hastings persona non-grata because she made a statement highlighting the catastrophic situation in Gaza.
Kapila concludes by saying that even if a strand “of extremist Israeli politics expounds violent hate against Palestinians.. there is nothing to suggest that this is a formalized Israeli state policy”
Mind you, yesterday Israel president Isaac Herzog said: “This war is not only a war between Israel and Hamas, it’s a war that is intended, really, truly, to save Western civilisation. To save the values of Western civilization.”
Herzog and Israel’s narrative are repellent beyond belief for any person, nation, or civilization.
If this is indeed what Western civilization is, thank you. We do not wish to be converted.
The United Nations must come to terms with the fact that many of its staff and members of its wider family disagree with its leadership and stance on the Gaza war.
To what extent can United Nations staff remain silent when the tenets of the Organization they have sworn office to are decimated and violated daily?
The principles of international humanitarian law and human rights are nonexistent.
The principles of independence and impartiality have been trampled upon.
Asha Bradley a member of the World Food Programme family, writes:
“The trauma of having a genocide livestreamed to us was compounded by our Western governments’ and media support for horrendous violence under a false narrative of ” Israel’s right,” but I was also becoming aware that the abandonment of the people of Gaza had infected the humanitarian sphere, well at least, THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME.
WFPs sole duty is to uphold people’s right to food and provide food assistance. In the case of Gaza where 100% of the population is facing starvation, WFP has been uncharacteristically quiet.”
How ethical, impartial, and moral is Cindy McCain?
WFP staff thinks she is not and they are demanding her resignation.
In response to staff protests, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson reiterated the SG’s complete confidence in Cindy McCain.
In the meantime, Israel has now canceled the visa of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator Lynn Hastings because she made a statement highlighting the catastrophic situation in Gaza.
The SG’s spokesperson reiterated the Secretary-General’s complete confidence in Lynn Hastings.
There is a significant difference, however, between McCain and Hastings.
Hastings was fulfilling her obligations as an international civil servant for the United Nations.
McCain was serving the interests of other countries.
In doing so, McCain was directly violating the standards of conduct of the international civil service, namely Article 8:
“If the impartiality of the international civil service is to be maintained, international civil servants must remain independent of any authority outside their Organization; their conduct must reflect that independence. It cannot be too strongly stressed that international civil servants are not representatives of Governments, nor are they proponents of their policies.
and Article 42:
“There may be situations in which the behavior of an international civil servant may reflect on the Organization. International civil servants must therefore bear in mind that their conduct and activities outside the workplace, even if unrelated to official duties, can compromise the image and the interests of the organizations.”
Mr. Spokesman,
Confidence must be well-earned and well-placed.
A UN official who has lost the confidence of his staff must leave.
In a mail sent to all WFP staff, WFP Staff Union conveyed the grave concerns of the staff over WFP’s position in Gaza, and the perceived ambiguous stance of the Executive Director, advisors and Leadership Group on the war and on the attendance of Ms. McCain at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada.
The Staff Union sent a request for clarification to the Ethics Office. Note that the Ethics Office reports to the Secretary-General who personally cleared the appointment of Cindy McCain.
The Staff Union recalled that those staff who reported misconduct in good faith should be protected from retaliation.
“Whether or not the UN itself has taken up a position the use of starvation as a weapon should not prevent WFP, which has always been a leader in the pursuit of the right to food, from continuing to fight for that right.. We invite our leadership to take up this request”
Shoutout to WFP staff who dared to denounce double standards within the Ethics Office and the United Nations.
The principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence are fundamental to humanitarian action. Humanity means that human suffering must be addressed wherever it is found, with particular attention to the most vulnerable.
In 2014, following the Gaza war, UNRWA imposed disciplinary measures for Gaza staff who posted on social media about the rights of Palestinians while Israel was indiscriminately killing their families. This was done at the request of the US Administration.
Mr. Secretary-General,
Will you direct your Ethics Office to uphold the same standard of impartiality and neutrality for Cindy McCain, or will she be absolved owing to her U.S. nationality?
As Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, the United Nations is losing its last shred of morality.
The Israeli government has informed the UN that it will not renew the visa of Lynn Hastings, the U.N. resident coordinator and humanitarian coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Israeli government has asked the U.N. to appoint a replacement that can gain their trust.
To put it differently, someone who wouldn’t dare to blame Israel, as Hastings bravely did. Hastings was merely fulfilling her obligations by exposing the humanitarian crisis imposed by the Israeli government.
In other words, the UN is now actively seeking an obedient and submissive official to replace Hastings to appease Israel. Someone who, according to Israel, is impartial enough to blame everything on the Palestinians, even their own Genocide.
As for UNRWA, the U.S. Administration has already nominated an American Deputy Commissioner General. The new DCG will be busy investigating the local staff of UNRWA to satisfy Israel’s latest unsubstantiated accusations of lack of neutrality. Will the new UNRWA DCG dare to investigate Israel’s bombing of 82 UNRWA schools, centers, and shelters, as well as the indiscriminate killing of some 150 UNRWA Palestinian local staff?
Yesterday, as the fiercest bombardments resumed, the UNRWA CG had one thing to say: ‘Very sad days ahead’, effectively abdicating his role as the UNRWA Humanitarian Head in Gaza.
In UNHQ NY, the Secretary-General’s Spokesman was busy fielding questions from journalists about the WFP Head, Cindy McCain, defending her fiercely, even though WFP didn’t manage to airdrop a single box of aid for the Palestinian people under her leadership.
When one journalist asked the SG’ Spokesman how worried was the SG about UN staff in Gaza, the Spokesman replied:
“Extremely”
The death toll for UNRWA staff is currently close to 150.
Yesterday, on one of the most horrific days of Israeli bombardment and indiscriminate killing of civilian Palestinians, the SG issued a two-line statement:
“I deeply regret that military operations have started again in Gaza. I still hope that it will be possible to renew the pause that was established.”
Subsequently, he was seen at COP28 telling world leaders that it was:
“Not too late to stop the climate crisis and that they could still prevent planetary crash and burn. But we need leadership – cooperation – and political will. And we need it now.”
Mr. Secretary-General,
If the United Nations cannot prevent the total crash and destruction of 365 sq km of Gaza, how can we prevent the ‘planetary crash’?
How will you prevent the “planet’s burn” if the United Nations is unable to prevent the live burning of 2 million Palestinian people?
Mr. Secretary-General,
The only place you should be in at this moment, you and your UN leaders, is Gaza. Nowhere Else.
Yesterday, the Commissioner General of UNRWA pinned a new tweet on X praising his UNRWA colleagues as the “true heroes” as they continue to “put on their UN vest and go to work every day.”
UNRWA’s senior management rushed to post many videos and statements on social media praising the dedication of UNRWA Palestinian local staff who have remained committed to their communities.
UNRWA’s local staff in Palestine are undoubtedly the true heroes.
However, the narrative of UNRWA senior management does not accurately depict the situation.
The harsh reality is that UNRWA Palestinian staff were left with no choice. Just like Israel imposed a total blockade of Gaza, UNRWA senior management confined their entire 13000 Palestinian local staff to stay in the North of Gaza.
They neglected to protect them from the indiscriminate bombing, leaving them without a place to hide or a means of escape.
During the first days of the war, a few international staff quickly fled Gaza, leaving behind some 13000 staff with no information, no support, no directives, no nothing…
All 13000 Gaza staff received only one message from the Acting Deputy Commissioner General. It read,
‘In these extremely unprecedented and tough times, this is to enable staff to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances. We pray for everyone’s safety at this time.”
Pray?
This is how UNRWA senior management treated the 13000 Palestinian local staff.
They prayed.
And this is what transpired next.
Amal (name changed), an UNRWA teacher, rushed to leave her home from Jabaliya with her two kids and husband and moved without any protection to the south. She couldn’t find a place to shelter because the shelters were overcrowded and unsafe. She tried to contact UNRWA headquarters, but no one answered her. Finding no place to shelter, she slept on the streets with her family, on the pavement, and the roads.
Khaled (name changed), a social worker, received a WhatsApp message from a relative working with another UN organization informing him that his organization was relocating local staff to the South. Khaled rushed to contact his supervisor, but his supervisor was nowhere to be found. He called another UNRWA international official who shockingly told him that “he was only responsible for international UNRWA staff safety and security and not the Palestinian ones and that he was too busy to be bothered.”That night, Khaled’s house was bombed, and he died with his wife and kids in the rubble of their own home.
Alaa’ (name changed), a nurse wanted to move to the Khan Younes Training Center. According to what she heard, other UN agencies designated the center as relatively secure and the UN gave its coordinates to the Israeli side as a refuge for local staff. The journey from the North to the South was dangerous, and Israel was bombarding those fleeing on the main Salaheddin road in Gaza. Alaa’ reached out to her Director (an UNRWA international staff) to request transportation in an armored UN vehicle to the KYTC. The International Director stated that she could not assist her, and that taxis were still functioning, transporting civilians to the border. Alaa and her children took the dangerous Salaheddin road on their own. When they reached their destination later that day, she observed the International Director alone inside the UNRWA armored vehicle with ample room beside her.
Suha (name changed) and her four children left Gaza and headed towards the south. She attempted to reach out to UNRWA headquarters in search of guidance, but senior management did not give the Palestinian staff in Gaza any hotline number to call. She found no place to stay, so she hid under a tree and tied a blanket to her children’s hands to keep them together.
Throughout the war, UNRWA Palestinian staff were left alone by senior management. Their bravery in navigating alone without any advice, directive, or support during this war is heroic.
However, it came at a significant price.
All other UN agencies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories included their Palestinian local staff under the UNDSS security arrangements and provided a designated safe haven and safe transportation except UNRWA Palestinian staff.
All other UN agencies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories have completed a headcount for their local staff, except for UNRWA Palestinian staff.
To date, there is no headcount of Palestinian staff at UNRWA.
The headcount for the UNRWA international staff was, however, completed. Most of them work from home abroad while receiving a daily subsistence allowance.
The number of UNRWA Palestinian staff who were killed has now reached 126, and that number is likely to go up. Many of these staff members lost their lives, along with their entire families and dependents. Many of them are still under the rubble.
It is imperative to investigate the unacceptable failures of senior management in planning for the security and safety of Palestinian staff.
The lack of emergency preparedness in an emergency-designated duty station is astounding. UNRWA Palestinian local staff were left with no protection, no directives, and no support.
Praising them on social media as “real heroes” is not sufficient.
The Secretary-General is responsible for fulfilling the rights of UNRWA Palestinian staff under the rules.
1- The UNRWA Palestinian staff are entitled to danger pay:
This allowance is payable as a monthly sum currently at 1640 USD per month to internationally-recruited and locally recruited staff whenever staff are present Gaza, whether or not they report to duty. Currently, UNRWA has only paid danger pay to its international staff, but not to its local staff in Palestine.
2- The UNRWA Palestinian staff are entitled to payment of daily subsistence allowance (DSA):
Under the UNDSS security policies, UNRWA staff should have been relocated to either the Khan Yunis Training Center or a designated safe haven in the south. The Director of Human Resources should have authorized payment of DSA for an initial period of 30 days. He has not done so. The daily rate of DSA in Gaza is currently 168 USD. This entitles each UNRWA local staff member to receive 5040 USD for the first month of the war. Instead, the Commissioner-General has granted permission to disburse 300 USD/month to each staff member. On the other hand, UNRWA international staff have been paid daily DSA even though they have been working remotely from outside Gaza in the comfort of their own homes.
3- The families of the UNRWA Palestinian staff are entitled to compensation under the Malicious Act Insurance Policy (M.A.I.P):
Under the MAIP, the families of the 126 deceased UNRWA Palestinian staff are now entitled to a total amount of approximately 15 million USD. Each bereaved family is entitled to receive roughly 120,000 USD. The bereaved families have not received a single penny from UNRWA senior management.
During the recent UNRWA Advisory Commission on November 21, the UNRWA Commissioner-General stated that UNRWA had obligations towards the host governments that it intended to fulfill. He asserted that he heard the call for action and supported it.
Unfortunately, the M.A.I.P policy cannot be applied retroactively since it is conditional on several measures such as compliance with security directives.
The Director of Human Resources and senior management must be held accountable for failing to inform the Palestinian staff of the applicable policies and excluding them from MAIP coverage.
Nothing but discrimination, incompetence, and disregard for the lives of Palestinian local staff…
In the meantime, there is a lack of transparency regarding the OCHA 1.2 billion humanitarian appeal for Gaza.
Neither OCHA nor the UN has published any figures on the total funds received so far. Yesterday, a journalist asked the SG Spokesperson about the total funds received so far, but the spokesperson was unable to provide an answer.
You can get an idea from the transcripts of the noon highlights:
Question: Okay. I’m going to ask two updates. First one, sorry. First one is the appeal… the OCHA appeal, the 1.2 billion humanitarian appeal. How does that work?
Spokesman: I don’t have the numbers with me, but as I’ve told you, I think, Dezhi, the…
Question: I tried. I even donated, but I still cannot find the figure.
Spokesman: Okay. Then we will help you find where your money went.
Question: Thank you. Yeah. Really…
Spokesman: I won’t ask you how much you donated, but we do appreciate your donation. [laughter]
Laughter.
Mr. Spokesman, I can help you figure out the places where this money sometimes goes amiss. At times, it struggles to find its way, which is towards the Palestinian refugees.
Sometimes, like in the aftermath of the 2014 Gaza war and the ensuing Emergency Appeal, when generous donors responded swiftly, the emergency funds went amiss. Part of this money was used by an UNRWA international staff member posted in Gaza to build a gym because he wanted to maintain his shape while working in a complex duty station.
There was no oversight internally or externally for how the Emergency Appeal Funds were drawn upon. Part of these funds have not gone to their destined beneficiaries: the Palestinian people.
A third of UNRWA budget is funded by the US Administration, which in turn has significant leverage on senior appointments, operations, and oversight. There are those who may question why KSA and other GCC major donors have reduced their funding for UNRWA. Despite their desire to insist on political motives, the fact is that these countries have repeatedly requested expense monitoring reports and have not received any. As a result, they reduced their funding.
UNRWA’s survival and relevance are more crucial today than ever before.
In order to fulfill its mandate, UNRWA needs to be accountable to the Palestinian refugees and to the Palestinian staff. In addition, it must decrease its reliance on US funds and strive to regain the trust of Arab and other donors.
Establishing an independent oversight mechanism and board is the only way to achieve that. The host governments and representatives of donor countries must have independent experts sitting on these boards, reviewing, inspecting, and reporting to donors.
For this to happen, there must be accountability first. UNRWA Palestinian staff have the right to receive answers and for their rights to be respected and fulfilled.
I ask the Secretary-General to establish an independent external inquiry commission to investigate the failure of UNRWA senior management to include UNRWA Palestinian staff under the UNDSS Security Policies and the M.A.I.P.
I ask the Secretary-General to publish daily updated figures for the OCHA Emergency Appeal for Gaza.
I ask the Secretary-General to compensate the families of the deceased UNRWA staff by paying them 15 million compensation from the OCHA emergency appeal fund.
I call on UNRWA Commissioner-General to pay the local staff of UNRWA their entitlements to danger pay.
I call on UNRWA Commissioner-General to pay the local staff their entitlements to DSA.
I ask the Secretary-General to uphold the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
Today, November 29th marks the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people.
This day serves as a reminder that approximately 6 million Palestinian refugees are still dispersed throughout the region. The recent Gaza war resulted in the forced displacement of over one million Palestinians and the death of thousands of children, women, and men.
Mr. Secretary-General, the Palestinian staff of the UN are also Palestinian refugees.
The United Nations must not discriminate against its own Palestinian staff and must act swiftly to fulfill its obligations towards them.
For years, the United Nations has discriminated against the #UNRWA Palestinian local staff by excluding them from coverage under two key UN policies that apply to ALL United Nations staff in times of war.
UNRWA Palestinian local staff have been systematically excluded from the coverage under these two policies and discriminated against due to cost implications and because of their Palestinian identity.
The UN Inter-Agency Security Management Network made significant policy-related decisions and updates regarding the security of locally recruited personnel in June 2018. Furthermore, it was requested that the Designated Official at every duty station convey the policies of the UN Security Manual to all locally recruited personnel and their eligible family members.
UNRWA Palestinian local staff were not informed about the policies, resulting in them being left without vital information about their safety and protection.
The Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP) provides compensation for deaths and partial or permanent disabilities caused by acts of war and hostilities. The Palestinian local staff of UNRWA in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon are eligible for such coverage, but they have been systematically excluded from MAIP coverage.
These two policies apply to all UN locally recruited staff worldwide, except for the local staff of UNRWA in Palestine.
This week, Mr. Martin Griffiths, the OCHA Coordinator, initiated the Emergency Appeal for Gaza and appealed to member states to fulfill their obligations of USD 1.2 billion. Around 250 million dollars have already been allocated. The Emergency Appeal is expected to raise the required funds, which will likely compensate the guilt of the member states who were silent during this genocide.
Holding a minute of silence and lowering the flags is a welcome gesture, but it’s insufficient.
I ask the Secretary-General to fulfill his moral obligations and duty of care towards the 103 UNRWA colleagues who lost their lives in the service of the United Nations.
The 103 UNRWA staff killed by Israel have been enduring atrocities and suffering for decades in Gaza and despite this, they have continued to serve the United Nations with dedication, loyalty and persistence.
The UN is considering giving each bereaved family a meager $3000 USD.
Under the MAIP coverage, the families of the 103 staff killed would have been entitled to receive approximately 12 million USD, with each family receiving approximately 120,000 USD individually.
Nevertheless, the UN is suggesting that they receive $3000.
The UNRWA Palestinian local staff are being discriminated against. The MAIP covers all local staff worldwide.
The United Nations must ensure that rules and regulations are consistently applied to all staff members, regardless of their category or nationality.
It is the responsibility of the United Nations to fulfill its obligations to the families of UN staff and compensate them promptly.
Many are unaware that the 102 United Nations staff whom Israel killed in Gaza were all Palestinians.
They were all local staff.
They were all from UNRWA.
UN offices worldwide lowered their flags to half-mast on November 13th, mourning the loss of 102 UNRWA staff killed by Israel since the start of the war in Gaza.
Ceremonies, statements and condemnations.
In remembrance, a minute of silence and vigils were held.
Nothing but a Facade.
In the history of the UN, this has been the highest death toll among UN staff in a short period.
What explains this?
The UN has specific security policies that apply to all personnel. UNRWA sets itself apart from other organizations because the majority of its staff is local, and the minority is international. In Gaza alone, there are approximately 13,000 local UNRWA staff members.
When the Security Phase in a country is deemed Critical, the UN evacuates the international staff to a designated safe haven outside the duty station. All UN offices have security plans in place that are constantly being updated. For local staff, the UN Security policy designates a safe haven within the same duty station.
For UNRWA, this could have meant, for example, designating Rafah as a safe haven.
What prevented this from being done?
The UNRWA local staff were not included in the UNDSS security system at any time. This is as straightforward as it gets. As a result, they have been denied a fundamental right: to be safeguarded against attacks of inhuman proportions. They were killed by Israel while delivering humanitarian services to Palestinians and sleeping in their homes with their families.
Why?
Because they are Palestinians?
Why?
Because they are too many?
Why?
Because designating a safe haven has additional cost implications?
Why?
Or is it because Palestinian lives are cheap and disposable?
Meanwhile, all international staff have been evacuated outside Gaza. Near the Rafah border on the Palestinian side, there are only a few international staff left.
If the 2014 Gaza war taught us anything, it should have been to implement a more inclusive security policy for local UNRWA staff during war times.
Yesterday, a journalist asked the UN spokesperson whether the UN was concerned about the UN staff in Gaza?
The Spokesman replied:
“ I mean, the UN staff in Gaza, the 13,000 or so UN staff there in Gaza are Gazans, right? They’re Palestinians. They are suffering along with the people that they serve”
They’re Gazans! They’re Palestinians!
As if Palestinians are destined to suffer…
As if Palestinians are destined to be killed and dismembered…
Mr. Spokesperson, that’s not correct.
Palestinian staff in Gaza are, first and foremost, United Nations staff. You have a responsibility to protect them while they deliver their work under the United Nations emblem.
The Blue Flag is certainly not worthy of the Palestinian staff.
A few days ago, on 11 October 2023, the Fourth Committee of the United Nations (Special Political and Decolonization) approved nineteen draft resolutions as it wrapped up its general debate on decolonization.
Unsurprisingly, the three countries that consistently voted against several of these resolutions were Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The resolution requiring the administering Powers to terminate military activities and eliminate military bases in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration. Approved by a vote of 102 in favor to 3 against: Israel, United Kingdom, United States
The resolution titled “Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories requires the administering Powers to regularly transmit to the Secretary-General statistical and other technical information relating to the economic, social, and educational conditions in their Territories. Approved by a vote of 135 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom).
The resolution titled “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories” expresses concern about activities aimed at exploiting the natural and human resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to the detriment of their inhabitants. Approved by a vote of 135 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel), with 2 abstentions (France, United Kingdom).
The resolution titled “Dissemination of information on decolonization” highlights the importance of continuing and expanding efforts to ensure the widest possible dissemination of information on decolonization. Approved by a vote of 136 in favor to 3 against (Israel, United Kingdom, United States) and 1 abstention (France).
So, if there is any doubt about who advocates for a post-colonial world, Doubt No More.
The message is clear: the governments of the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom consider themselves superior colonies and would like to see that status quo extended indefinitely.
The worst is that this is happening inside the United Nations, the multilateral international organization that embodies the universal conception of progress and human rights.
It would only seem logical then that the United States will resort to its vetoing powers to torpedo any peace efforts, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Only yesterday, those same countries butchered yet another Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United States has provided a diplomatic shield to its main ally by casting a record veto 53 times in the UN Security Council in favor of Israel and against anti-Israel resolutions or condemnations of Israel.
Of these 53 vetoes, 21 were under former President Obama’s administration. Before he departed from the White House, Obama instructed the US representative to the UN to abstain on a resolution condemning the settlements.
The United States has been sending a clear message to all. We will never allow any resolution against Israel inside the United Nations, and the United Nations isn’t the appropriate forum to agree on peace and security in the world.
In the right of reply, we have a Secretary-General who, by his statements, fails to call for a ceasefire out of fear of upsetting the United States and Israel.
A Secretary-General who fails to act on his predecessor’s (Kofi Annan) action plan to take timely and preventive actions to avert another bloody genocide in the world.
A Secretary-General who fails to use the word “condemn” when it comes to the large-scale atrocities committed against the Palestinian people, especially the Palestinian children, or to the total illegal blockade of Gaza or the forced internal displacement of 1 million Palestinian persons.
A United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Volker Turk slapped by Israel’s permanent representative to the UN because he dared to condemn the siege of Gaza as “prohibited by international law”.
A Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, who, when asked by journalists about the UN staff who were killed in the Israeli airstrikes, dehumanizes them only because they’re Palestinians as if Palestinian victims do not have names, as if Palestinians are destined every day to die by an Israeli airstrike.
“Question: And final question. Do you have names or at least the nationalities of UNRWA’s employees who were killed?
Spokesman: My understanding is that they’re all Palestinians. Yeah.
Question: Names? No names?
Spokesman: I will give you the… I think UNRWA has released the names. I will make sure we circulate them, if we have all of them.
A Spokesperson for the Secretary-General who attempts to diminish the role and persona of the UN Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, because she courageously addressed the Secretary-General asking him to call for an immediate ceasefire, which he still has not done.
“Question: I want to take you back to this issue of ceasefire. Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, tweeted and directly asked the Secretary-General. She said, I’m quoting, “Secretary-General, please call for a ceasefire now. If not now, when? If not you, who?” What’s your comment?
Spokesman: I mean, Ms. Albanese is Ms. Albanese. The Secretary-General is the Secretary-General. She’s an independent rapporteur with the right to say, of course, what she feels she needs to say. The Secretary-General’s position, I think, as I’ve been explaining it with some challenge here for the last days, is what it is”
If there is anything that the #Gaza war has shown, it certainly is the death of multilateralism and the death of the United Nations.
Palestine smells of death.
The Security Council smells of death.
The United Nations smells of death.
The international system that embodies the principles of peace, security, and human rights has failed.
It’s time to change the way the world is organized.
While conflicts worldwide might still require global collaboration, they must not be entertained within a dormant body that cannot reform its anachronic veto system of World War II.
There is no reason why the Arab world should continue paying their assessed contributions to an international body paralyzed and controlled by the Western powers.
The Arab countries must realize that only a new world order reshaped around new blocs and coalitions can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and push the Middle East toward further integration and sustainable development.
There is no reason why the Secretary-General of an international organization must not pay tribute to the Palestinian United Nations staff who died from Israeli air strikes in their own homes.
To Mr. Guterres, we are reminded of the words of the former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld in his speech in May 1954.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
Mr. Secretary-General, it is time to save #Gaza from hell.
The fact that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu was allowed in late September 2023 to publicly hold a map of the “New Middle East” inside the General Assembly of the United Nations without #Palestine showing on this map speaks volumes about the United Nations’ lack of impartiality in this conflict and its outright support to Israel committing war crimes against the Palestinian people, children, and women.
An Organization that advocates for the respect of human rights and international humanitarian law yet fails systematically to hold its member states, namely Israel, accountable for violating every article of its Charter.
An Organization that threatens its staff, namely the UN local staff in the Middle East and within #UNRWA to refrain from publishing any comment condemning the killing and ethnic cleansing of its own community under the pretext of neutrality when all the principles of neutrality have been decimated in its own General Assembly when it allowed the PM Netanyahu to wipe out the name of the state of Palestine from the Middle East Map.
An Organization that stayed silent when the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court’s only statement when prompted by journalists to issue a statement was:
“If there is evidence that Palestinians,…..has committed crimes. Yes, we have jurisdiction …”
in total disregard of the large-scale genocide of the Palestinian people being broadcast live 24/7 on Al Jazeera news channel.
An Organization that allows Israel to dictate its war plans by swiftly evacuating its international staff out of #Gaza in response to Israel’s request to wipe out Gaza and the Palestinians from the map of the Middle East.
Israel is moving to erase Gaza and the West Bank from the Middle East, and the United Nations is its first accomplice.
On 07 April 2004, the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressing the Commission on Human Rights on the United Nations’ failure to avert the Genocide in Rwanda, said
“We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenceless men, women and children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago.
Such crimes cannot be reversed.
Such failures cannot be repaired.
The dead cannot be brought back to life.
So what can we do?
First, we must all acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide.
When we recall such events and ask “why did no one intervene?
No one can claim ignorance.
All who were playing any part in world affairs at that time should ask, “what more could I have done? How would I react next time –- and what am I doing now to make it less likely there will be a next time?”
Mr. Annan’s words resonate clearly and loudly more than ever today.
An Organization that fails repeatedly to prevent genocide and to act decisively to stop it, is a failed Organisation.
Thirty years after the Rwanda #genocide of 800,000 people, will the United Nations allow another genocide of Gaza’s two million people while it sits idle, making useless statements?
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.
The Secretary-General relentlessly pursues his attempts to circumvent the proper Administration of Justice by forcing his proposals to amend the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.
Besides the numerous pages of redundant data on the number of cases submitted and adjudicated, data useless to member states, the Secretary-General, and his counsels launched their relentless attacks against the United Nations Dispute Tribunal.
They accused the UNDT of failing to respect the role of the Secretary-General and his authority to impose disciplinary measures on staff members who engage in misconduct.
The Secretary-General further accused the Tribunal of failing to respect the operational independent role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).
According to the Secretary-General, his proposed amendment is intended solely to ensure that the legal framework established by the General Assembly is respected and that the Dispute Tribunal conducts a judicial review of the disciplinary measure and gives evidentiary weight to evidence collected by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.
Reading through the Secretary-General’s report, member states must remember the number of staff representing them who fell prey to the Secretary-General’s injustices throughout the years.
Wrongdoing, retaliation, oppression, discrimination, malicious allegations, unlawful terminations, and dismissals that neither the system of Administration of Justice could remedy, nor the successive Secretary-Generals had an interest in correcting.
You can’t make them “Whole” again, Mr. Secretary-General, can you?
Image courtesy of Saatchi.
Not only you are unable to do so, but you are reluctant to do so.
Not only are you reluctant to do so, but you’re determined to eviscerate any notion left remotely associated with the Administration of Justice for staff.
In your latest report, you claim that your sole intent is to ensure that the legal framework established by the General Assembly is respected.
As a reminder, Mr. Secretary-General GA Resolution A/RES/63/253* adopted by member states on 24 December 2008 has called explicitly for a transparent new system of Administration of justice consistent with the principles of the rule of law and “due process to ensure respect for the rights and obligations of staff members and the accountability of managers and staff members alike.”
So, we would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why is it then when a staff member has been wrongly separated, through no fault of their own but rather as a result of managerial abuse and retaliation, your decision was systematically taken to pay them compensation instead of considering their reintegration?
We ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why is it so, even when the Tribunal found them profoundly wronged, retaliated against, and never afforded due process?
We ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why is it so, even when the Tribunal ruled that your representatives and counsels have cast untruthful allegations against them and that OIOS had consistently lied throughout their reports without adducing evidence?
We want to ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why is it that your representatives and managers can easily have their mistakes and misdeeds buried with the careers of those staff members who have been ruined thereby?
We ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why do you not allow the Tribunal to redress the injustices suffered by the staff?
We ask you, Mr. Secretary-General, why is it that there has yet to be a record of any action that you have ever taken after a referral for accountability made by the Tribunal?
Your proposal to amend article 9 (4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal is subversive and aimed at annihilating any due process left to staff members during legal proceedings.
The UNDT has rejected your proposal explicitly and repeatedly, but you choose conveniently to keep relegating such criticism to buried annexes at the deep end of your reports to deter member states’ attention from them.
Here they are, harsh words, reproduced below:
“The amendment proposed by the Secretary-General (the proposal) is unacceptable in its broad claim to administrative discretion.
It subverts the established basic premises of fairness while radically limiting the role of the Dispute Tribunal in the examination of the impugned sanctioning decision.
Accepting this amendment would go beyond the practice that had been in place before the new line of jurisprudence and would reduce the Dispute Tribunal to a façade of an independent court.
The proposal states that the Dispute Tribunal only reviews the factual foundation of the disciplinary decision on the basis of evidence before the Secretary- General at the time when the decision was taken.
This impermissibly limits the Tribunal’s role as an independent fact-finder, as it does not allow for the evidence to be presented before it directly, even where necessary and available, and as such, does not make any provision for the eventuality of an incomplete or poorly documented investigation.
It, moreover, removes from the Tribunal’s purview any newly discovered or newly produced evidence.
Relying on incomplete material by the Dispute Tribunal would go against the principle of substantive rationality and procedural fairness, especially given that, according to the jurisprudence, investigative organs are not obliged to actively collect evidence in favour of the staff member.
As it is with any independent court or Tribunal, the determination must be made upon the facts put before it, and not retrospectively;
The proposal shifts the burden of proof on the applicant, contrary to the long-established jurisprudence, which embraces the universal principle that the Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct occurred, sometimes outright called a presumption of innocence
For all the aforesaid reasons, the proposal should not be adopted. “
You claim that your proposed amendment is intended solely to ensure that the legal framework established by the General Assembly is respected.
Deceitful claims to make before the General Assembly.
Between 2009 and 2022, under your delegated authority, seventy-five staff, chiefs, and directors were wrongfully terminated and retaliated against by the Secretary-General.
The UNDT and UNAT ruled in their favor, finding that the termination decisions were unlawful, ill-motivated, and lacking due process.
In the seventy-five cases, the UNDT and UNAT ordered their reinstatement.
In every case, you and your legal counsels opted for compensation instead of reinstatement.
Every single case.
The list is attached.
Seventy-five staff.
For twelve consecutive years.
What respect for the Organization’s legal framework are you talking about?
Instead of releasing your recent report to member states, one UNDT judgment (Nakhlawi) is sufficient to show them the subversion of the system of justice under your leadership and serves to remind them of their legislative authority, which has been consistently circumvented by you and your legal counsels:
“The failure of management to give individual consideration to each case in which rescission of a termination decision is ordered, contradicts the spirit and legislative intent of the General Assembly of art. 10.5 of its Statute.
By that article, the General Assembly created an expectation for staff members that in cases where the Tribunal orders rescission of a termination decision, the Administration will give due consideration to the possibility of reintegration before it considers the payment of the amount of compensation set in lieu of rescission, as determined by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is of the view that this matter goes to the core of the creation of the “new” internal justice system and the very nature of the accountability of management and the duty of management, and the Organization, towards each and every member of staff, if he or she has done no wrong.
It finds that the policy behind the Tribunal’s Statute and the whole system of justice is put at risk by the attitude of management to systematically opt for the payment in lieu of rescission under art. 10.5(a).
The Tribunal finds the fact that the Administration was unable to present a single case where individual consideration was given to rescission and subsequent reintegration under art. 10.5(a) of the Statute, shows that it fails to exercise the discretion accorded to it under that article.
Failure to exercise discretion is in itself illegal and improper.
It is for the General Assembly to consider whether the underlying policy objective is being frustrated by what appears to be an unwritten policy operated by senior managers.”
Mr. Secretary-General, if you’re still intent on amending the Statute of the UNDT out of respect for the Organization’s legal framework, consider amending one item of art. 10.5:
Make reinstatement mandatory and eradicate the option of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Anything short of that is an abuse of justice.
For without an Order of Reinstatement, the United Nations Tribunal cannot make an Applicant “Whole” again.
How the Secretary-General keeps circumventing the authorities of the Tribunal to gain total control of the judiciary power.
Another damning report that will eventually go unnoticed during the seventy-eight session of the General Assembly is the Internal Justice Council A/78/121 report, which the General Assembly will consider under item 144 of the preliminary list (Administration of Justice at the United Nations).
The General Assembly established the Internal Justice Council in its resolution 62/228 to ensure independence, professionalism, and accountability in the system of Administration of justice.
In its most recent report, the Internal Justice Council voiced its scathing objection and criticism of the Secretary-General’s attempts to unilaterally amend the rules of procedure of the UN Dispute Tribunal to gain total control over the judicial authority of the UNDT and particularly circumventing the power of the Tribunals and the role of Internal Justice Council.
In essence, the Secretary-General aims to deprive the UNDT of its primary function: the function of the judicial review of an administrative or disciplinary decision.
The Rules of procedure of the UNDT are essential to ensure the efficiency and independence of the Tribunals. Further, establishing rules of procedure is the statutory prerogative of the Tribunals, subject to the approval of the General Assembly.
The statute of the Dispute Tribunal, as adopted by the Assembly in its resolution 63/253, provides in particular under Article 7:
“Subject to the provisions of the present statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall establish its own rules of procedure, which shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.”
It is evident in plain words that, should there be instances in which there are attempts to modify the UNDT’s rules of procedure, the Tribunals should be allowed to articulate their stances before the Fifth Committee and the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.
In addition, the Internal Justice Council noted that the Administration must consult the Tribunals before proposing any legislative amendments affecting the functioning of the Tribunals.
So what did the Secretary-General propose, and how did he provoke the wrath of the stakeholders, starting with the UNDT/UNAT, ILOAT, and most recently, the Internal Justice Council?
Article 2.1 (b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s current statute confers the power to conduct a judicial review of an administrative decision, which is a judicial power in all major judicial systems globally. This includes the ability to determine the basis for the challenged decision, including the accuracy of the factual basis.
The Secretary-General proposed to the General Assembly to amend the statute of the Dispute Tribunal by introducing a new article 9.4.:
The proposed article 9.4 seeks to change the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal on the interpretation of article 2.1 (b) of the statute of the Dispute Tribunal to prevent it from making any judicial enquiry on the factual basis on which an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure is based. Too complicated?
In previous judgments, the UNDT had likened the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) reports to a police inquiry and thus found that such reports are subject to a judicial review and determination of whether misconduct occurred or not.
In plain reader-friendly words, what does this mean to you, the staff member?
It simply means that should you be accused of misconduct, and the Administration provides the Tribunal with what, in their opinion, is an untouchable report by OIOS, the Tribunal retains the right to consider that the OIOS report was flawed, biased, and/or possibly totally lacking evidence.
Thus, we understand that the Tribunal has a right to test the evidence, to require further proof, or to rule that the OIOS evidence was of no value and consequently to rescind the administrative or disciplinary measure taken against you.
Here comes the Secretary-General.
He proposes that the Tribunal has no right to question the OIOS report and should accept it as it is.
He further suggests that the Tribunals should automatically abide by OIOS’ sacred reports.
In other words, OIOS investigations can never be wrong, nor can they ever contain mistakes, be they factual or analytic.
In other words, OIOS is above the law.
In other words, OIOS reports are always accurate and factual. They are a sound basis for any disciplinary decision the Secretary-General takes that cannot be challenged before the Tribunal.
Reading only one will prove how efficient, diligent, and meticulous OIOS investigation reports are.
In brief, Cigna, the Organization’s medical insurance provider, reported
“allegations of possible medical insurance provider fraud” to the Investigations Division of OIOS. As a result, OIOS began investigations into these allegations, accusing the national staff of possible medical insurance fraud. Thus, OIOS recommended withholding the final separation entitlements of the ten staff members and putting on hold the processing of pension paperwork for national staff whose appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the Kalemie office of MONUSCO in 2022.”
Let us now have a look at a few excerpts from the Tribunal’s judgments:
“It appears that the OIOS investigation was riddled with problems. Indeed, the record in this case is devoid of details about the investigation at all.
Even today, we do not know what was investigated, whether the investigation was ever completed, and if so, what it found about the “possible fraud.”
“This absence of evidence is astounding given over four years of systematic monitoring, the passage of two and a half years since OIOS was first notified of the allegations of possible fraud and began to investigate, and more than a year after the disputed decision to withhold the Applicant’s separation entitlements and pension paperwork “until the investigation has been concluded and the findings support the imposition of financial recovery …
Despite the OIOS promise giving rise to the decision that “[a]s per normal practice, OIOS will issue reports for each staff member at the completion of its investigations, with an indication of the quantified MIP fraud should this be established,” no report has been presented to the Tribunal”
Perhaps the closest thing to an OIOS report in the record is an email from the Acting Deputy Director of the Africa Regional Office, Investigations Division of OIOS, which does not describe any of the “evidence that OIOS has”, and it also describes confusion as to who was on the list to be investigated.
OIOS interviewed the Applicant about the possible fraud allegations the day before his separation, but the record contains no evidence about that interview- what he was told about the allegations, the status of the investigation to that point, and his response.
The record in this case lacks any evidence whatsoever of the nature of the alleged fraud, how the OrganizationOrganization suffered any financial loss, and how any alleged financial loss was calculated. The case consists of a series of black boxes.
The third black box is the OIOS investigation. Again, the Tribunal was not told what evidence OIOS uncovered over the course of its year-and-a-half investigation. Indeed, the few crumbs of “evidence” that were produced in this case were contradictory and unreliable.
In conclusion, in the absence of any evidence to support the Administration’s decision, the Tribunal must find that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
So, after we noted OIOS’ immaculate and meticulous investigation reports, we return to the Secretary General’s proposal to amend the UNDT statute to prevent the Tribunals from putting in doubt the veracity, authenticity, or evidentiary value of OIOS reports.
The recent UNDT Judgments referred to above demonstrate the importance of the Tribunal’s authority to conduct a judicial review of the administrative decision and to assess the OIOS evidence presented to it under Article 2.1 (b) of the Dispute Tribunal’s current statute.
The above Judgments inherently show how your rights as a staff member are upheld during the proceedings of the Tribunals and how you are protected from the flawed, biased, and frequently purposely ill-founded OIOS reports.
This is, in essence, what the Secretary-General proposes to abolish through the amendment of the UNDT statute and the introduction of his proposed article 9.4
We should note that this proposal is a grave prejudice to the rights of staff members to due process as the staff member has a right to be presented with concrete evidence and to be given a fair opportunity to rebut it before the Tribunal. However, the Secretary-General believes this should not be allowed.
Appalled by the Secretary-General’s proposals, the Internal Justice Council noted in its report the following scathing remarks:
“The Council wishes to emphasize the difference between investigative and adjudicative powers. The Council respectfully considers that the submissions and the proposed statutory amendment are flawed and disagrees with the submissions.
The proposal that the General Assembly should adopt a resolution for the purpose of overturning the judicial decisions of which the Administration, being a party to the judicial proceeding, disapproves is contrary to the universally accepted principle of judicial independence.
The adoption of such a resolution would signal that the General Assembly will compel the Tribunals to adopt submissions of management in disputes to which they are parties, thereby depriving or at least appearing to deprive staff of the right to an independent and impartial hearing of their appeal against an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure.
The proposal offends the most basic principle of justice, the audi alteram partem rule, in this case the right of a person who complains against an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure to be heard in their defence.
The role of OIOS in the disciplinary process is to investigate and transmit the results of investigations together with recommendations.
It has no power to exercise any adjudicative function and no duty to hear and consider the position of the complainant, nor to provide the complainant with a copy of its report.
At the time at which the Secretary-General takes a decision based on the said report, it has not undergone any evaluation and may contain the types of errors that are universally consistent with the investigative process.
An administrative decision that is based on a report that contains errors of fact will inevitably reflect those errors.
The only opportunity that a complainant has to contribute to or appeal against the findings on which the decision is based is that provided by article 2.1 (b) of the statute of the Dispute Tribunal.
It is respectfully submitted that the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal is consistent with universally accepted principles of judicial review, which must include an opportunity for a judicial interrogation of the factual basis on which the decision is made.
28. The Council expresses its concern that the passage of the proposed article 9.4 will undermine the independence of the internal judicial system of the United Nations, and respectfully recommends that it not be adopted by the General Assembly. “
To reflect more on what the Secretary-General considers as untouchable sacred OIOS reports, we draw his attention to a recent report by the Joint Inspection Unit JIU/REP/2020/1 on the review of the state of the investigation function: progress made in the United Nations system organizations in strengthening the investigation function which has pointed out the severe deficiencies in OIOS investigations:
“Despite progress made in enhancing the independence of the investigation function, addressing function fragmentation and establishing professional investigation capabilities, the investigation function continues to face significant problems, including:
A continuing widespread and unacceptable degree of fragmentation of the responsibility for investigations in many organizations, where investigations and investigation-related work (i.e. intake and preliminary assessment) are carried out by various other offices and functions.
The resulting risks from this fragmentation are, among others: that the independence, impartiality and objectivity of the investigation function and the activities carried out by it are not assured; the inherent risk of conflict of interest situations; and the negative consequences in terms of quality, accountability and trust.
Another shortcoming is the lack of common investigation procedures and standards in some organizations and, although the professional competence of investigators is a decisive factor for investigations, the absence of professional investigators in some, but not all, organizations. With regard to the latter, no progress has been made in six organizations since 2011.
A still insufficient degree of structural autonomy and operational independence of the investigation function, hence inadequate safeguards against interference by management.
Independence is a decisive prerequisite for the effective delivery of the investigation mandate and for the unbiased, objective and effective discharge of the investigation responsibilities.
Despite this damning negative evidence against OIOS, the Secretary-General is marching forward with his proposal.
The General Assembly will consider the Internal Justice Council report and other reports relating to the Administration of Justice on the 1st, 2nd, and 28th of November 2023.
We hope that the Member States and ACABQ play a more active role in maintaining the judiciary balance of the Organization instead of just taking note of the present report.
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.
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.”
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”
To recall the background, the General Assembly, in its resolution 77/257, invited the Secretary-General to complete the work on the outstanding legal and practical aspects of the review of the jurisdictional set-up of the United Nations Common System, including finalizing past proposals and assessing the viability of other options.
The Secretary General’s new report A/78/154 includes a finalized proposal for a joint chamber of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT).
It also includes an evaluation of other options that could help, according to the Secretary-General, to preserve the unity of the United Nations Common System in the context of two independent tribunal systems.
This proposal stems from conflicting tribunal judgments that the ILOAT and the UNAT previously issued following decisions taken by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) in 2017 concerning the classification of duty stations and their respective post adjustments.
In summary, the Secretary-General considers that establishing a joint chamber could be a suitable measure to help minimize the risk of divergence in the jurisprudence of the two tribunal systems, particularly on ICSC matters.
According to the Secretary-General, maintaining the status quo carries significant risks for the cohesion and consistency of the United Nations Common System on ICSC-related challenges, which in turn carries harmful repercussions for organizations and staff. The Secretary-General further cautions against the possibility of future similar scenarios concerning the Commission’s forthcoming assessment and review of the compensation system.
It is worth recalling that the UN Secretariat has a two-tiered judicial system (UNDT and UNAT), and the General Assembly elects its judges. In contrast, the ILOAT has one Tribunal, is not part of the United Nations administration of justice system, and the General Assembly does not elect its judges.
To understand the far-reaching encroachment attempts of the Secretary-General on the independence of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal and the ILO Appeals Tribunals, one needs only to read Annexes III and IV, which contain the comments of both Tribunals on the Secretary-General’s proposal and report in addition to the subtly hidden and buried WIPO comments.
With respect to ILOAT, the Tribunal referred to its 25 July 2022 and 12 April 2023 letters. It noted that it continues to consider that the Secretary-General’s proposal was “fundamentally unsound and should not be pursued”.
Furthermore, the ILOA Tribunal noted that the new proposals formulated in the report “would limit, in a most problematic way, its existing competence in reviewing matters arising from the United Nations common system.”
The ILOAT further noted that many fundamental concerns regarding the proposed creation of a joint chamber, as expressed in these previous letters, have not been adequately understood and addressed.
For transparency reasons, we request the Secretary-General to make these letters available to member states during the presentation of the report to the 78th GA session to guarantee that the views of the ILOAT are objectively and thoroughly conveyed to member states instead of being tailored by the Secretary-General and his legal counsels as they see fit in their report.
With regards to encouraging informal exchanges between the United Nations Appeals Tribunal and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal noted with some concern that the Secretary-General’s report
“seems to suggest that the exchanges between the Tribunals would have to be “transparently communicated” and/or should be “facilitated and administered” by the United Nations and ILO.
Such administrative arrangements do not appear to us to be a means of allowing informal exchanges of the type contemplated by the General Assembly but rather an entirely inappropriate attempt to control or regulate these exchanges.
If so, they would plainly Not respect the two Tribunals’ full independence and, moreover, could undermine the conditions required for really productive contacts between them.
This Tribunal does not see any need for the involvement of anyone, beyond the Tribunals’ respective Registries, in the organization of such exchanges, apart from the provision of funding.”
That is a powerful statement indeed from the ILOAT. Not sure if the representatives of member states have the time to read these annexes buried at the deep end of the Secretary-General’s report.
With respect to the comments of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, they were also relegated to the bottom end of this report and included under Annex III.
The UNAT referred to its earlier submissions of 12 April and 5 June 2023 in which it had noted that the fundamental structure under which each of the United Nations and International Labour Organization judicial bodies operated was considerably different.
On the scope of jurisdiction, the UNAT reiterated its earlier observations to the Secretary-General that Assembly resolutions bind the Appeals Tribunal, and as such, the Assembly resolutions, together with the statute of the Appeals Tribunal, limit the Appeals Tribunal’s scope of judicial review of certain cases related to human resources management and administrative and budgetary matters. Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal is an appellate body, while UNDT is a tribunal of first instance. These significant structural and jurisdictional characteristics do not constrain ILOAT.
“The Appeals Tribunal has stated its concern that the proposed approaches, including the joint chamber, do not address these fundamental differences. The proposed amendments do not appear to acknowledge or address the principled arguments made against this proposal by UNAT, UNDT and ILOAT. “
On the scope of Independence of the Appeals Tribunal, the provision that preliminary rulings of the joint chamber will be binding on the United Nations Tribunals and ILOAT directly and pointedly impacts the independence of each of the tribunals.
“This is further underscored by the prohibition against judges meeting in person to discuss and decide such cases to economize resources.
This is contrary to the internationally accepted process for judicial decision-making and directly impacts the independence of judges to deliberate and exercise their jurisdiction. It ignores or at least underestimates the collegial judicial method, especially where judges are from different nations with different legal systems.
A joint chamber must be adequately resourced, including provision for judges to hold hearings in person and to deliberate in person.
These operational decisions must be made by the judges themselves, who are best placed to decide how cases are handled. Indeed, even more fundamentally, it is a matter of judicial independence that the judges be able to do so and not be directed by the Organization as to how they hear and decide cases.”
Now, we turn to a carefully placed hyperlink in the Secretary-General’s report on page 32, Annex VI, which no one will click or read because the Secretary-General does not want to highlight the degree of objection to his proposal.
This hyperlink leads us to the positions and views of individual stakeholders such as UNISERV and CCISUA, but one organization’s strong views stood out and we saw it fit to include an excerpt from their comments below.
The review was requested by the UN General Assembly in response to five judgments issued by the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) with which it was clearly dissatisfied. This request was made at a time when the General Assembly did not yet know which way the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT), and ultimately the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), would rule on the same matter that had been reviewed by the ILOAT in the above-mentioned judgments.
“In addition, in criticizing the ILOAT’s judgments in such a formal and public manner, and by going as far as to request a review of the entire jurisdictional set up of the UN common system, strong signals were being sent to the judges on the UN Tribunals, when the matter before them was still sub judice, not to follow the ILOAT’s reasoning, which some may consider to be an interference with the judicial independence of the UN judiciary.
WIPO strongly objects to the proposal to establish a joint chamber, which, in short, undermines the authority and independence of the tribunals, as well as the legitimacy of their decisions – bedrock principles of the rule of law.
In addition, the reconfiguration of the jurisdictional set up constitutes a disproportionate and ill-conceived response to the perceived challenge that the review is seeking to address.
The real issue, of course, is the dissatisfaction with the fact that an independent tribunal had indirectly contested the ICSC’s alleged decision-making authority on post adjustment matters, which, according to its Statute, lies with the UN General Assembly.
WIPO requests that its comments be reflected in the report to the UN General Assembly”
And so it goes. WIPO’s comments were not reflected in the Secretary-General’s report and were nowhere to be seen except through a vanishing hyperlink at the end of the report.
How many resources, both financial and human, were spent in the past two years on the Secretary-General’s proposal despite the early warning signs cautioning them against it from all stakeholders? Why do the Secretary-General and his ever-expanding legal team insist on meddling with the system of administration of justice?
Instinctively, all women will relate to the recent story of Luis Rubiales forcing his now-infamous Kiss on Jenni Hermoso and the kind of behavior that a high-ranking official like Rubiales should not display.
Strangely enough, this question was asked by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Official Spokesman during the daily noon briefings:
“Question: Thanks. Given that gender equality is such an important issue for the Secretary-General, I just wondered if he has any comments on this row that’s engulfing the Spanish football chief, Luis Rubiales, and over his allegedly non-consensual Kiss of the Spanish footballer Jenni Hermoso. Does he have any comments?
Spokesman: I mean, how difficult is it not to kiss somebody on the lips? Right? There is a critical issue of sexism that remain in sports and we hope that the Spanish authorities and the Spanish Government deal with this in a manner that respects the rights of all female athletes.
Question: Sorry to clarify, so he does see this as a sexual assault?
Spokesman: That is a criminal term. Right? From what we see here, I don’t see any indication that anything was consensual.”
Spoken like a steadfast defender of women’s rights and advocate of accountability to end impunity against sexual predators, harassers, and rapists in the United Nations.
We have the answer since you’ve asked Mr. Spokesperson and Mr. Secretary-General.
“I mean, how difficult is it not to kiss somebody on the lips?”
Particularly for United Nations Senior Officials.
It seems extremely difficult.
You can start by asking Martina Brostrom, who the United Nations fired in retaliation for having reported the former deputy executive director of UNAIDS who forcibly kissed her in a hotel elevator, groped her, and tried to drag her to his room during a conference in 2015.
So. Mr. Spokesman, it is very difficult for United Nations Senior Officials NOT to kiss their subordinates on the lips.
And when they do so without consent, the United Nations fabricates allegations against their subordinates and fires them to protect those same United Nations Senior Officials.
For instance, in the case of Martina, the United Nations fabricated a case of sexual and financial misconduct against her because she was having a relationship with her now husband and father of her child!
And yet protecting those sexual predators is always first on the Secretary-General’s agenda.
Martina sent four separate emails directly to the Secretary-General, asking him to intervene in the case. She never received a reply other than a confirmation of receipt.
Immediately after, she was offered a promotion if she withdrew her claim against the senior UN official, but Martina refused. So, she was fired.
The very fact that the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS was so difficult to remove from his role is a reflection of something much bigger, of what all these zero tolerance policies for sexual harassment, abuse, and protection against retaliation policies that the Secertary-General continues to advocate for in the political arena represent nothing but a pleasing façade in a bid to secure the yearly assessed financial contributions of member states.
You can also ask Malayah Harper, who used to run UNAIDS programs in Uganda and Kenya, and who previously told CNN that the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDs assaulted her in an almost identical way, a year earlier than Martina, also at a hotel. Those were her words:
“He got into the lift with me, and then kind of lunged forward to – you could call it – kiss me, but I thought a kiss had to be consensual.”
You can also ask a third woman, who, according to CNN, still works in the UN system and wished to remain anonymous, described a very similar incident with the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS.
“He forced himself on me; he stuck his tongue in my mouth, tried to touch me all over, into my blouse.”
Mr. Spokesman and Mr. Secretary-General, it is beyond impossible for senior United Nations officials NOT to kiss staff on their lips, and it is beyond impossible for the Secretary-General to hold those Senior United Nations officials accountable.
So, to answer your question, Mr. Spokesman:
What is undoubtedly easy is the retaliation against those women who dare to report the Kiss.
As a follow-up to two recent Certioraris blog posts about a UNDT judge adopting a sexist and victim-blaming approach to recent cases of sexual harassment and sexual exploitation in the United Nations, my jurisprudence research led me to an appalling dissenting opinion by the same Judge in yet another judgment in which he obscenely blamed the Victim for a case of sexual assault and rape.
To recap, in his “Boys will be Boys” Judgment, the Judge who holds an Italian nationality considered comments from a male staff member to a female staff member, such as “Your breasts look like mountains….” and “The water jets in the pool could be pleasurable between a woman’s legs….” as “euphoric jokes and quips, “boutades” by an elated person (like a boy on a school trip) with no intention to harm or harass or humiliate.”
In a second Judgment, Makeen, UNDT/2023/071, the Judge considered it normal for a 53-year-old UN married man to have sex with an 18-year-old girl who cleans his house and cooks for him and ordered his reinstatement or in lieu compensation for his termination.
In both Judgments, referring to a 2007 Duke Law Research Paper, I argued that the cultural beliefs and values of the same UNDT Judge were once again crucial factors impacting his final decision and judgment and that the cultural affiliations of different judges and jurors will influence their perceptions of whether sexual harassment occurred.
Most recently, an Italian judge provoked outrage after clearing a school caretaker of sexually assaulting a teenage girl because the grope lasted only “a handful of seconds.”
Italians expressed their outrage on social media by posting videos of themselves touching intimate body parts alongside the hashtags “palpata breve” (brief grope) and “10 secondi” (10 seconds).
Italian judges have been criticized in the past for similar rulings. In 2017, a judge in Ancona cleared two men of the rape of a 22-year-old Peruvian woman because they said (and the judges agreed) that she was “ugly.” In a famous case from 1999, a man was cleared of rape because the Victim was wearing tight jeans believed to be impossible to remove without her assistance.
The UNDT judge has an array of judgments that all point to sexist cultural beliefs, and in which he seems to consistently want to blame the women for the sexual harassment and violence they endure.
Such victim smearing is commonplace in rape trials in Italy, and the UNDT Judge did not depart from this sexist legal approach in yet another UNDT judgment in which he expressed his dissenting opinion against the majority of the Judges.
The case itself is pretty straightforward, albeit revolting.
A long-term serving UNFPA staff member at the D-1 level sexually assaulted, forced himself, and raped a UN colleague he had met earlier at dinner.
The majority of the Judges upheld the disciplinary sanction of termination, having considered the totality of the evidence before them; chief among them was that irrespective of the fact that the female colleague had kissed the Director, she had not given him explicit consent to have intercourse with him, and she explicitly told him that she had made a mistake and wanted to leave the room, but he would not let her.
The D-1 Director and the female staff had met over dinner during a UN mission. The conversation was friendly. The Director invited his female colleague to continue the conversation. On her way to pick him up, he left his room door open as he stood on his balcony waiting for her. They had a discussion on the balcony, and he kissed her.
She then realized she made a mistake and wanted to leave.
Her judgment, Her Call, Her Right.
But the Director wouldn’t let her go. She explicitly told him she didn’t want to have sex with him, but he wouldn’t let her leave. The Director attempted to pin her against the wall but was unsuccessful, so instead, he held her in a firearms lift, put her on the bed, and raped her.
The majority of the Judges ruled against the Director, and the termination decision clearly referred to the lack of consent as a decisive factor for sexual assault and rape which had zero tolerance in the United Nations.
The UNDT judgment UNDT/2022/030 featured a 17-page dissenting opinion by the UNDT Judge same author of the “Boys will be Boys” judgment.
The UNDT judge argued why he would have cleared the D-1 Director of any misconduct. He even managed to quote the Applicant’s words in his application to defend him.
In a disturbing quote, the UNDT Judge invoked the Director’s own words in his application by stating that
“the Complainant’s “friendly disposition towards the Applicant … was exculpatory of him having assaulted her.”
In other words, the Judge plainly said, if you’re friendly to me, I have the right to rape you!
But, Your Honor:
Image courtesy of boldomatic.com
The Judge then quotes the OIOS investigator to insinuate that a long time had elapsed during which the Director was on top of the Complainant, therefore, questioning how it is possible that the female staff member did not give consent given the lengthy period.
In other words, the Judge was saying that it if was rape, it would have all happened in seconds.
The Judge goes on to state.
“It is really difficult to recognize that an alleged victim of assault and rape, in a situation showing no sign of threat or violence at all will accept the sexual intercourse because she was “afraid to upset” the perpetrator, or because she had in front of her a person perceived as a “powerful person”.
With all due respect, your Honour, it must be difficult indeed, first because you’re looking at it from a Man’s perspective and not a Woman’s.
Second, Your Honor, it seems you are also looking at it from a deep-seated sexist perspective embedded in your cultural beliefs, namely that if a woman flirts with a man, he is entitled to have sex with her.
The Judge’s dissenting opinion goes on:
“When the borders of a situation of mutual respect are crossed, indeed, no gentle relationship could be kept, and a reaction by the victim is expected according to “id quod plerumque accidit,” that is what usually happens to ordinary people; indeed, the embarrassment invoked by the Complainant cannot justify the acceptance of sexual advances without any reaction.
The lack of any reaction by the person who is the object of sexual advances, whatever could be its motivation, cannot be interpreted as a clear dissent to the sexual intercourse. In other terms, the test required by this case is not only to assess if the Complainant wanted the sexual intercourse or not, but also the perception of her behaviour by a reasonable person within a multicultural environment.”
With all due respect, your Honour: ordinary people??? Lack of any reaction? Perception in a multicultural environment??
Are you, in fact, your Honour, insinuating that the Victim is not ordinary and hence is not normal because she froze and did not shout for help??
In what culture, your Honour, may we ask, a Man has a right to rape a Woman who clearly said No to Sex?
Are you really working for the Administration of Justice in the United Nations with the overall aim of advancing a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, violence; and assault against Women?
The Judge goes on to argue in his dissenting opinion, that the Complainant told the Director she had made a mistake going into his room. She did not want to have sex with him; however, this happened in the very first moments of the meeting and the fact that she did not repeat her dissent statement later on equates to weak resistance or consent!
Even when the Complainant testified about the physical strength of the Director and his firemen’s lift to fly her on the bed, which the Director conceded to, the dissenting Judge considered this an act that in itself could be subjected to different interpretations…
No comment.
In his closing arguments, the dissenting Judge goes on to intimate a disgraceful analysis of events that undeniably point out his own cultural beliefs and values and the sexist approach towards female victims of sexual harassment and assault.
“Certainly the expectations that a young staff member – with work-related problems and frustrations – may have placed in a powerful and sly colleague with a high position in the United Nations hierarchy and well connected (running for presidency in his country, friend of the Regional Director and of the former President of the United States of America, Barrack Obama) remained frustrated after she realized – at the end of the intercourse and not before and probably only when the Applicant told her he was married and with his own life – he had purely sexual objectives, she had made a mistake and she had been used as an object. However, this is not sufficient to substantiate an accusation of rape.”
Wow.
Just Wow.
So, the D-1 Director knows Barrack Obama and is running for the presidency in his country. It goes without saying, we will believe the D-1 Director. And she is just a frustrated young female staff member in the United Nations who did not realize she has been used as an object!! Goes without saying, she is just a frustrated female staff member and she is lying!
Yes, dear audience, these are the owns words of a UNDT judge!
Let’s recall here that this was a 17 pages dissenting opinion by the UNDT Judge and that the UNDT judgment ruled in favor of the Complainant. The Director appealed the judgment to UNAT.
The importance of the case called for a full bench of UNAT Judges.
Thankfully, in Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1332, UNAT unanimously ruled in favor of the Victim and against the Director finding
“that the evidence established with a high degree of probability that the Appellant engaged in non-consensual sex with the Complainant, amounting to sexual assault”
UNAT further held against the dissenting opinion that it was
“insufficient for the Appellant to rely on “tacit” consent or the absence of repeated expressions of non-consent in these circumstances.
Also, rape and sexual assault do not always include threats of violence or physical restraint nor victims physically fighting back but can occur, as here, where a person in a position of power, trust or authority compels the Complainant to engage in unwanted activity.
However, the Complainant did testify to being physically restrained and overwhelmed after having expressed her lack of consent. This would be a plausible rationale for the Complainant to not struggle and suffer further physical assault in the interaction.
She described that her failure to scream or yell was because she was “in shock”, “ashamed”, and “embarrassed”, as well as cognizant that she was in a “very precarious situation with the Regional Director” that could compromise her job.”
Surprisingly, there was a new division among the UNAT Judges as to whether the name of the Director should remain anonymous. There was once again a dissenting opinion by 3 Judges who refused to protect the perpetrator even though the final judgment remained anonymous.
The dissenting Judges held
“while we acknowledge the desirability of protection of personal privacy, so too must we bring to account in a balancing exercise, the need to deter others, no less senior officials of the United Nations, from insidious and harmful sexual abuse and exploitation.
For these reasons we would not have found good cause to depart in this case from the UNAT’s practice of naming parties in judgments”
The name of the UNFPA D-1 Director remains Anonymous to date.
“The most concerning findings are those related to misconduct. The overall sense from staff is that senior management does not take appropriate action and simply “shuffles” or “outrides” problems, especially in cases of abuse of authority and sexual harassment.
The number of open investigation cases related to harassment, including sexual harassment, retaliation and misconduct, has been growing year after year, and, the overall sense is that senior management does not take appropriate or timely disciplinary action against perpetrators of misconduct (sometimes the individual is just transferred to another duty station) or action against perpetrators is delayed to the point that the Victim, or the perpetrator, leaves the organization before any formal disciplinary action is taken.
Staff also felt that this behaviour by management was particularly acute when it was related to sexual harassment, abuse or exploitation. “
The dissenting Italian Judge judged a woman because she did not express her dissent twice to the Man who raped her.
In other words, his dissenting opinion boils down to his sexist and discriminatory obiter dictum: if you kissed him, it means you gave him consent.
The UNDT code of conduct of Judges requires “fairness in the conduct of proceedings and that Judges must not conduct themselves in a manner that is racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory. They must uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Further, the Judges of the UNDT are appointed by the General Assembly following recommendations of the Internal Justice Council and consultation with the Office of Human Resources on the search for suitable candidates for the positions of judges.
May we ask the General Assembly, the Internal Justice Council, and OHR who can hold this UNDT judge in contempt of the UNDT code of conduct for his consistent sexist legal approach against female staff members in the United Nations?
May we further ask these bodies how do they ensure that that they are recruiting the Judges who uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and whom we assume, in turn, advance the Secretary-general’s policy on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and sexual vioence against women?
May we further ask UNAT judges on what grounds they decide that a perpetrator at a D-1 level convicted of a sexual assault that is considered a crime is granted anonymity despite the UNDT and UNAT establishing the misconduct against him?
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.
“… 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...
On the 1st of May 2023, for the second part of the 77th’s resumed General Assembly session, the Secretary-General of the United Nations presented his report on the Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.
One of the Secretary-General’s statements in his report stood out. Stood out. The Secretary-General stated that:
“No allegations could indicate that there are ineffective complaint mechanisms, that these do not exist, that victims do not report allegations because they do not believe they will be protected, or that they believe that no action will be taken.”
The Secretary-General continues by alluding that while the number of allegations may provide insights into trends, the progress of the United Nations, Member States, and partners with regards to SEA must be measured by so many other indicators such as communicating standards, training, vetting, risk management, and mitigation measures … and so on.
Mr. Secretary-General, I beg to differ.
On behalf of thousands of victims and survivors of sexual harassment and exploitation by the United Nations staff and personnel and non-UN personnel, those victims/survivors who willingly chose not to report allegations because they witnessed first-hand the lack of action and the retaliation against their colleagues who dared to do so:
That is a bold and defiant statement to make before those survivors and the General-Assembly.
Effective reporting mechanisms for SEA do not exist.
Victims are not protected.
Perpetrators are protected.
Retaliation is rampant.
Accountability simply does not exist.
We know the names of the victims, and we know the names of the perpetrators.
All of them were protected. Many are still working with the United Nations. Under your leadership.
Fearless.
Protected.
Rampant.
Predators.
You seem to indicate in your report that the number of SEA allegations received is not a good measurement tool and that few or no allegations do not indicate that an adequate prevention programme exists.
The ACABQ in its report, specifically underscored again
“its concern regarding the increased number of allegations and recalled the collective and unanimous position of the General Assembly that one substantiated case of sexual exploitation and abuse is one case too many”
One substantiated case of sexual exploitation and abuse is one case too many indeed.
Therefore, data on allegations matter.
“In 2022 only, 243 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse related to United Nations staff and affiliated personnel were received across the United Nations system, and 291 allegations relating to personnel of implementing partners not under the authority of the United Nations were reported.”
Source: Your Report.
NB: Those allegations belong to those who dared to report them.
There is no estimated data for persons who have been sexually exploited, abused, or harassed and did not dare to report it.
“Firstly, we are deeply concerned about the large number of cases of sexual exploitation and abuse that continue to emerge each year. This indicates that much remains to be done before we achieve a lasting change in culture, behaviour and attitudes in the Organisation. As highlighted by the ACABQ in its report, the implementation of the zero-tolerance policy for inaction requires first and foremost awareness of the applicable standards and prohibitions by all staff and a safe environment for reporting cases of sexual exploitation and abuse. “
Conclusion: Data Matters.
Then you go on in the same SEA report presented to the General Assembly stating that your SEA strategy prioritizes
“upholding the rights and dignity of victims and ending impunity through reporting and investigations.”
What rights and dignity are you referring to?
In your report, you refer to the success of the “WHO webinars as part of the “No Excuse!” campaign which attracted more than 30,000 participants in 2022, and its training sessions on a “speak-up” culture which were attended by 2,000 personnel”
“How many times do I have to speak before (the doctors) at WHO responsible for the sexual abuse are punished?” she asked. “If WHO does not take radical measures, we will conclude that the organization has been made rotten by rapists.”
When the same survivor states that “money will not erase the wounds I have in my heart.” She reported the alleged misconduct to the WHO in 2019, but never received a response.
What end of impunity are you referring to?
When two weeks ago, the WHO made the below announcement:
“We call for strengthening efforts towards ensuring that the United Nations will not remain silent or passive in the face of reported incidents as well as protecting and supporting victims of SEA through adopting a victim-centered approach.”
You also reported that to reinforce ongoing system-wide efforts, in September 2022, the position of the Special Coordinator on Improving the United Nations Response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse was strengthened by revising the terms of the appointment from a when-actually-employed basis to a full-time position at the Under-Secretary-General level.
“The Committee notes specifically a lack of clarity as to the standing of the Special Coordinator in the overall sexual exploitation and abuse prevention architecture, including any changes in that regard that may have resulted from the change to a full-time position modality and the shift of funding to the regular budget.”
Anifa and Jeanette are waiting.
So are thousands of women who were raped, beaten, assaulted, harrased and abused.
You are invited to a meeting with an Under-Secretary-General.
You are accused of serious misconduct and asked to resign.
You refuse.
A few hours later, you are presented with a termination letter effective the same day.
No investigation, due process, an opportunity to respond, right to submit exculpatory evidence, or disciplinary process. No, No, No. Nothing.
The next day, you are requested instead to sign a “Separation Agreement” or face termination.
“You have two hours left to decide,” as articulately and eloquently conveyed by the Director of Legal Affairs…
In French, there is a saying that perfectly depicts this scenario: it is called “l’épée de Damoclès.” In the figurative speech, it means a sword is hanging above your head, waiting to chop it off.
The UN coerces you to sign this agreement under duress. You will be left without a job, income, or medical insurance, and your family’s future is at stake. You reluctantly sign and commit not to file any claim against senior management.
The “Separation Agreement” miraculously rescinds the disciplinary measure and replaces it with a positive performance evaluation and a lengthy full-pay leave. Whatever happened to the serious misconduct? Whatever happened to accountability?
Savvy.
This is #UNRWA. This is the #UnitedNations.
But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you’re not.
“This Separation Agreement was established in lieu of imposing a disciplinary measure and as a full and final settlement and release of any and all claims. UNRWA will provide the Staff Member with a positive performance evaluation by his supervisor(s) to enable him to seek alternative employment outside UNRWA.
It is clear that the former CG and the former D/DLA (both representing the Agency), and the Applicant negotiated about the conditions of the Applicant’s separation, which resulted in the Separation Agreement signed. One of the agreed conditions was the issuance of a positive performance evaluation by the Agency.
The Tribunal reiterates that the Standards of Conduct apply to all staff members within UNRWA.. Managers and supervisors in a position of leadership are supposed to serve as a role model and therefore have a special obligation to uphold the highest standards of conduct. These standards include qualities as honesty, truthfulness, impartiality and incorruptibility.
Supervisors have a duty to evaluate staff members’ performance carefully and honestly. Supervisors are not allowed to issue a better evaluation where a staff member resigns than he would have received had he stayed within the Agency. This would be unfair towards other staff members, but it would also be a risk for future employers, possibly including other United Nations entities.”
Now consider this.
You are a long-term UN staff.
You report misconduct against your supervisors.
You request protection against retaliation.
You testify in an investigation against them.
Senior Management wants you out.
They fabricate allegations against you.
You cooperate with the investigation.
You are not provided the investigation report.
You are not provided any evidence against you.
The due process is completed.
You are invited to a meeting to finalize the disciplinary process.
You are informed by the USG of your immediate termination for serious misconduct in agreement with the Director of Legal Affairs and Director of Human Resources.
Less than a minute after, you are presented by the same USG and a WITNESS with a blackmail and bribery offer of resignation instead of termination, with an excellent performance evaluation report and a highly enticing financial package.
But there is one condition: you must sign an NDA agreeing not to file any claims against him or his Directors. Whatever happened to the serious misconduct?
“In the present case, it is apparent that the former CG offered the Applicant the option of resigning and receiving a positive recommendation instead of being terminated. If substantiated, such a practice is a blatant violation of the UN’s core values. If a staff member has committed serious misconduct, he/she must be separated from the Agency in accordance with the Agency’s regulatory framework. Under no circumstances should this staff member be provided with a positive recommendation, thus allowing him/her to pursue his/her international career within the United Nations system.”
You refuse.
You are terminated.
You appeal.
You win.
Twice.
But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you’re not.
Now consider also this.
You are accused of serious misconduct.
You fully cooperate with the investigation.
You patiently await the due process letter.
It doesn’t come.
No opportunity to respond, No right to submit exculpatory evidence, No disciplinary process, No due process, No, No, No. Nothing.
One exception: senior Management suddenly decides to place a note in your official status file, unilaterally concluding that you are guilty without giving you the inherent right to defend yourself and to complete the proper disciplinary process.
Confidential contents
Savvy.
This is #UNRWA. This is the #UnitedNations.
You appeal.
You are prevented from pursuing gainful employment due to the note to the file.
You fight.
You win.
But the same managers still work for international organizations, and you are not.
“It is uncontested that the Applicant was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct and the findings of the investigation. This failure is an obvious breach of the Applicant’s due process rights. Furthermore, the UNAT consistently held that placing such communications in an OSF has the direct legal consequence that it impacts future careers prospects of the staff member.
The Agency’s agreement to issue positive performance evaluations while the investigation was not completed was an act that was not in compliance with the Standards of Conduct.
The Tribunal finds that obligations deriving from the UN Charter, the Standards of Conduct and UNRWA Regulations and Rules prevail over obligations deriving from agreements concluded by the Agency with an individual staff member. Furthermore, as considered above, the said conditions were not in compliance with the UNRWA and UN regulatory framework.
The Tribunal thus holds that the conditions in such an agreement that are not in compliance with the regulatory framework of UNRWA and UN values and principles cannot be enforced before and by this Tribunal. “
The authors and advocates of these illegal “Separation Agreements” are still working for international organizations, and some are still with UNRWA. No one was held accountable.
There are hundreds more unlawful “Separation Agreements” coercing staff to leave under duress. The practice is ongoing in the #UnitedNations.
One senior official is awaiting his return to a prominent position in an international organization. A Director of Legal Affairs is occupying a leading post in the legal department of an international organization. The Director of Human resources is still with UNRWA.
You are out. They’re still in.
Accountability. Zero.
REMINDER.
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person…
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained….
In a UNAT judgment issued last week, the Tribunal appallingly held that sexual harassment offenders are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, just like victims and survivors.
A P-3 staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported sexual harassment by both her first reporting officer (FRO) and her second reporting officer (SRO). The staff member was placed on certified sick leave for two months. Following her return from sick leave, she filed a complaint with OIOS against both of her supervisors and requested to be reassigned to avoid any further interaction and unnecessary contact with her harassers.
After a significant delay, OIOS found the FRO and SRO guilty of sexual harassment, and disciplinary measures were imposed on the FRO and SRO.
Instead of protecting the staff member, UNODC allowed her former SRO to act as an additional supervisor in her performance evaluation report. The staff member’s mental well-being continued to deteriorate due to her regular meeting with one of the offenders due to them working for the same Organization.
The victim thus requested the Administration to provide her with the specific actions taken concerning the FRO and SRO to understand whether the disciplinary actions taken were proportionate to the committed misconduct and whether her rights have been sufficiently protected by the UNODC Administration, including the risk of repeated harm from the perpetrators.
Evidently, the Administration denied her requests.
In her submission to UNAT, the staff member appealed the breach of duty of care by the UNODC towards her, the undue delays in both the investigation and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against her supervisors, which violated her right as a staff member to be treated with dignity and respect, and to work in an environment free from harassment and abuse to take appropriate action.
The UNODC responded by requesting the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of receivability since the staff member did not submit a request for management evaluation, and the appeal was considered not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, UNAT decided that the majority of her appeal was not receivable.
The remaining issue was the staff member’s right to be provided with specific information and details about the disciplinary measures imposed on the FRO and SRO. The staff member based herself on Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, which states, ” The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management will also inform the aggrieved individual of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken. “
In a bizarre and skewed approach, the UNAT interpreted the preamble of ST/SGB/2008/5, which excerpt read that “all staff members of the Secretariat are treated with dignity and respect,” as intended to protect the sexual harassers’ dignity and privacy.
The Tribunal found that “by requiring the Administration to inform the aggrieved individuals of the action taken with no further details, sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 seeks to strike a balance between the right of an aggrieved individual, the privacy of the subject staff member, and the confidentiality of the process. “
UNAT steered clear from giving an objective interpretation of Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 (‘to inform the aggrieved individual of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken), most probably to avoid bad blood with the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management.
Strangely, the Judgment goes on to contradict its earlier interpretation by stating:
“It is incidentally lamentable that such unacceptable behaviour as sexual, or any sort of, harassment may still exist in high profile organisations such as UNODC, which is designed to combat drugs and crime, particularly in hierarchical relationships where respect and example should prevail over abuse and harassment. The principle of accountability must be severely reinforced where and when there is a breach of staff and management duties and obligations in this regard. “
UNAT further considered that, harm to the staff member’s mental well-being by the fact that she still meets her offender regularly and has been a witness in an application filed by this person before the UNDT cannot be seen as a direct effect of the contested administrative decision, but rather an indirect consequence of it, therefore not challengeable under the internal justice system.
How can UNAT preach the reinforcement of the principle of accountability in the same judgment that reinforces the principle of protecting the dignity and respect of sexual offenders?
“The water jets in the pool could be pleasurable between a woman’s legs….”
Let me show you a picture you’ll find amusing: a picture of a penis on my phone.
These are a few examples of a male #unitednations staff member’s comments and actions toward his female colleagues during a United Nations retreat.
If you’re reading this and you’re already shocked, don’t be…yet.
In a UNDT/2022/026 judgment issued in 2022 in the above-mentioned case, the Judge considered that:
“the facts under scrutiny cannot be considered severe, as they were made in jest and without the aim of harming or harassing anyone”
and that such
“acts are to be evaluated in the factual circumstances, where colleagues were having a rest in a pool during a retreat; it seems they were euphoric jokes and quips, “boutades” by an elated person (like a boy in a school trip) with no intention to harm or harass or humiliate.“
As to the charge of the offending picture, the Judge found
“no evidence of any shocking content of the meme and that the meme undisputedly contained only a sexually explicit (but not pornographic or prurient) picture. Showing it was certainly inappropriate, but it was in a framework of humour amongst colleagues in moments of relaxation in the office, without sexual advances and in no targeted way.”
The Judge further considered that
“some mitigating factors must be taken into account, such as the Applicant’s unblemished work record, his admission to certain allegations, the cooperation from the outset of investigation, his apology to one of the victims.”
Finally, the Judge decided that the sanction of termination for misconduct should be replaced by the disciplinary measure of a written censure and that the offender must be paid two years’ salary as compensation for his unlawful termination!
Well, now, our regulatory framework fails to provide sufficient protection and justice for the victims/survivors of #sexualharassment, and the UN justice system is intent on taking it a step further: encouraging perpetrators to continue their rampant sexual harassment.
What could have caused the UN Judge to make such an assessment and to reach such an erroneous decision?
I argue that the cultural beliefs and values of the Judge in the case mentioned above were crucial factors impacting his final decision.
“studies of sexual harassment perception are not intended to answer whether any specific plaintiff’s circumstances satisfy the legal criteria for sexual harassment.
Rather, they serve to demonstrate the potential differences with which victims, alleged perpetrators, judges, and juries perceive and consider appropriate handling of unwelcome sexualized approaches. Such studies may demonstrate how the cultural affiliations of different judges and jurors will influence their perceptions of whether sexual harassment occurred and, if so, was responded to appropriately.”
As regards the UNDT judgment, the Administration made the correct and timely decision to appeal to UNAT.
Bolstered by the UNDT Judge’s decision in his case, the perpetrator responding to the Appeal and defending his actions, argued that there were degrees of severity to sexual harassment misconduct:
“a passing suggestive glance or remark, for example, is not the same offence as a violent sexual assault or even an inappropriate touch, and neither are the examples of misconduct at issue in the instant matter. Accepting rationally that there exists a gradation in sexual harassment offences, it is appropriate that such graded misconduct be met with a gradation of imposed sanction. The Administration’s reliance on a zero-tolerance policy to circumvent this requirement, and sustain this unjust result, should not be countenanced.”
Don’t despair yet…there is some good news. Thankfully, the Secretariat has a two-tiered system of justice. Earlier this week, the UNAT issued its final judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1311 vacating the UNDT judgment in its entirety and upholding the termination decision.
The UNAT held that
“all individuals are entitled to be free of this kind of puerile behaviour in the work context. Making unwelcome, suggestive, sexual comments or innuendos to colleagues and showing them photographs of genitalia is unbecoming and disregarding of sensibilities, it violates the obligation of an international civil servant to uphold the highest standard of integrity and naturally would undermine professional confidence. Persons of mature character would know this.”
The UNAT sent an unequivocal reminder of the UN’s zero-tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment and considered that
“the Organisation is entitled and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment. The message needs to be sent out clearly that staff members who sexually harass their colleagues normally should expect to lose their employment. “
More righteous and unbiased Judgments, such as this recent one from UNAT, will contribute to steering the Organization’s moral compass in the right direction.
For a staff member who has been serving with them for sixteen years.
Sixteen years.
Yes.
Let’s first recap the recent statements of the Secretary-General and his global advocacy efforts before delving into the shocking details of this fresh appeal.
In his own words, the Secretary-General proudly proffered:
“Let us all be part of a healthier workforce as we work for a better world for all.”
Then there were significant #unitednations statements celebrating the launch of the new workplace #mentalhealth and #wellbeing strategy in October 2018.
The HLCM’s Duty of Care Task Force’s name was changed to the Taskforce on Occupational Health and Safety Forum to accompany these groundbreaking initiatives.
And finally, the cherry on the cake was the introduction of the New Parental Leave Framework in January 2023.
Announcing the new policy, the Chairman of the ICSC noted that the New Parental Leave Framework replaces the current maternity, paternity, and adoption leave provisions with a parental leave provision of 16 weeks for all parents; and it also provides an additional period of 10 weeks to birth mothers to meet the specific pre-and post-natal needs.
In his own words, the Chairman noted that the new policy
“will allow women to have more equitable career opportunities with men because they are not forced to suspend or abandon their careers to provide childcare.”
and that;
“the enhancement of the current provisions further demonstrates the values of the United Nations common system.”
Returning to the appeal and the UNDT Judgment issued yesterday in the case of Rechdan.
Rechdan, a staff member who entered the service of #unhcr in 2006, went on special leave without pay for two years. At the end of the leave period and coinciding with the COVID-19 outbreak, a global pandemic in March 2020, UNHCR requested her to confirm whether she intended to return to her post or relinquish her lien to the post and submit her resignation.
Rechdan confirmed in writing her intention to return to the office but informed UNHCR that she was nearing the end of a high-risk pregnancy and asked whether she could be granted telecommuting arrangements under the covid policy.
The UNHCR Medical Unit confirmed that given the high-risk pregnancy, the staff member should be put on a 100 % telecommuting arrangement from Zug, Switzerland, for two months until the start of her maternity leave.
The Applicant’s Supervisor denied the request on the same day based on “operational requirements .” On a side note, Operational requirement is an expression the Organization invariably uses without a genuine reason to justify unlawful decisions.
The Medical Unit persisted and recommended that the staff member be at least placed on special leave with full pay for two months until the start of the maternity leave.
In an appalling reaction and decision, the UNHCR Head of HR informed Rechdan that her failure to report to duty meant that there was no option left but to accept her letter of resignation from service or else her absence from work would be considered unauthorized, thus leading to the abandonment of post.
….. this space is left intentionally blank to allow readers time to process their emotions and reactions………….
Two months later, the staff member gave birth and resigned.
Briefly:
UNHCR did not approve Rechdan exceptional placement on telecommuting arrangements for two months, pending the start of her maternity leave, against the recommendations of the Medical Unit.
UNHCR did not approve exceptional approval for the placement of Rechdan on special leave with full pay for two months pending the start of her maternity leave, against the recommendations of the Medical Unit.
UNHCR did not approve nor pay Rechdan her maternity leave entitlement.
UNHCR coerced Rechdan into a forced resignation.
Below are excerpts from the Judgment describing UNHCR’s conduct:
“49. .. the Administration refused to accommodate the Applicant’s needs solely on the vague ground of “operational requirement .” In doing so, it failed to properly consider the Applicant’s compelling personal circumstances.
56. …the Administration gave the Applicant more difficult options such as resignation and the extension of her SLWOP until 31 December 2021.
This undoubtedly constitutes discriminatory treatment towards a pregnant woman on account of sex (see, e.g., ILOAT Judgment No. 3861, In L. G. (No. 2) (2017), para. 7). I
In this respect, the Tribunal wishes to highlight that art. 1 of the United Nations Charter has established that the purpose of the United Nations is to, inter alia, promote and encourage “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
57. ..the Tribunal finds that the Administration failed to properly exercise its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements for around two months. As such, the Organization failed to fulfill its duty of care towards the Applicant under staff regulation 1.2(c).
66. The Tribunal fails to understand how a reasonable decision-maker could have ignored the Applicant’s compelling personal circumstances, including the fact that she could not return to her duty station given her high-risk pregnancy and the travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
70. ….the Tribunal recalls that “a staff member’s right to maternity leave during service is a fundamental human right and cannot be denied, limited, or restricted for any reason” (see Barbulescu, para. 41). “
Not surprisingly, MEU decided to uphold the decision of the Administration in the first place.
It is astounding that at one point, the Administration suspended the proceedings to discuss whether they could reach an informal dispute resolution exit, and even though two international female counsels represented the Administration, none of them saw it fit to resolve the issue in the interest of Rechdan and grant her fundamental human right: to take care of her newborn baby.
Let us recall here that Rechdan is a locally recruited staff at the GS-6 level.
What difference does it make if the Secretary-General issues a new workplace mental health and well-being strategy if the HLCM’s TaskForce’s name changes to an Occupational Health and Safety one; if a celebrated New Parental Leave Framework is issued when in practice, Rechdan was denied her basic human right, denied her maternity leave and denied the right to continue her career while providing childcare to her newborn baby?
UNHCR’s mandate is one of the noblest in the United Nations. Before protecting and assisting millions of displaced and stateless people around the world, you can start by protecting your own staff.
Following my recent review of 12-year moral damages at the UNDT, I am sharing my second 12-year review of moral damages at the ILOAT.
Apart from the fact that words such as stress, harassment, institutional harassment, harm to Dignitas, humiliation, suffering, moral injury, severe distress, and retaliation are common denominators for the two lists, one element stands out:
Between 2009 and 2022, the ILO Administrative Tribunal issued 1809 judgments. The Tribunal ordered compensation for moral damages in 504 cases. The percentage of staff who obtained moral damages at the ILOAT was 30%. The total amount disbursed for moral damages is 8,489,800 USD.
During the same period, the UNDT issued 2368 judgments, of which 140 obtained moral damages. The UNDT percentage of moral damages awarded to staff stands at 5.91%. The total approximate amount disbursed was 2,177,000 USD.
The UNDT is quick to dismiss any request for moral damages unless you file dozens of confidential reports testifying to your delicate mental health, ironically rendering your mental health even more fragile and on a therapy-resistant mode.
What, then, is the point of moral damages, we ask?
I found the perfect answer quoting Mr. Yves Renouf, Legal Counsel for the Administration at the World Trade Organization:
“When an international official goes to court, he or she has already made one major step towards removing himself physically or mentally from the organisation for which he or she works. I’m talking for instance about the potential discomfort this official may feel when working with or simply seeing, even occasionally, colleagues whose deeds he/she described in the most unpleasant and sometimes colourful way during the appeal. Someone who has gone through the process of litigating against his/her employer actually changes, and I witnessed it on a number of occasions.
A disgruntled complainant may experience a lasting sentiment of injustice, become withdrawn, lose interest or pride in his/her work or experience difficulties in dealing effectively with colleagues.
Financial compensation has been, since Saxon and Frankish laws, a conventional way to make up for a situation that cannot be mended (such as the loss of a limb).
However, society has evolved since the 16th century and the situation of a staff member in a 21st century international organisation is a complex mix of law, personal interaction and psychology.
The situation where the complainant has been – so to speak – “eating, drinking and breathing” his/her dispute for years is the most psychologically complex. “
Indeed, no amount of money will ever undo the emotional and psychological damage and the permanent scarring inflicted on the staff members.
There can be no justice without holding senior staff personally accountable for their unlawful acts and decisions.
In 2005, the General Assembly commissioned an expert Redesign Panel to look into a new justice administration system and make recommendations for its set-up. The Redesign Panel noted that reforming the internal justice system was essential for reforming the Organization. It further cautioned that a large part of the management culture in the Organization existed because it was not underpinned by accountability.
Consequently, the Redesign Panel issued an excellent report with critical and distinct recommendations.
Commenting on the excellent report in 2007, the former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said
“The United Nations, as an organisation involved in setting norms and standards and advocating for the rule of law, has a special duty to offer its staff timely, effective and fair justice. It must therefore practice what it preaches with respect to the treatment and management of its own personnel. “
That is a compelling statement indeed.
The new two-tier justice system came to light in 2009 and became fully operational in 2010.
Eighteen years later, we can easily confirm that this system does not comply with any applicable international human rights standards.
One thing is sure: it’s a far cry from Mr. Ban Ki-Moon’s statement in 2007.
To answer this question, we look at the three-fold role of international administrative tribunals. Next, we attempt to ascertain whether this role has been fulfilled since the establishment of the new system.
Catherine M. O’Regan, former President of the IMF Administrative Tribunal, succinctly defined the three-fold role of international administrative tribunals as follows:
The first was to provide a fair system for the resolution of disputes to enhance morale within the international organisation;
The second was to ensure that international organisations are seen to respect the human rights of their staff members, so that staff members are treated fairly and without discrimination; and;
The third was to provide fair procedures for resolving disputes with staff members. International administrative tribunals should focus first on adjudicating disputes fairly.
Regarding the first role, we know that staff morale is at its lowest, as we’ve seen in a previous post summarizing the moral damages awarded to staff in the past twelve years in the UNDT/UNAT.
As regards the second one, we can confirm that retaliation is rampant more than ever. There is a widespread view that the formal justice system affords little protection of individual rights. Accountability simply does not exist in the books of the Secretary-General.
Staff feel UNSAFE.
Staff are continuously RETALIATED against.
The Report of the Internal Justice Council on Administration of Justice A/72/210 2017/ offers scathing criticism of the protection from retaliation mechanisms available to staff members who decide to lodge appeals or testify before the Tribunals against the Administration.
“Witnesses appearing before this court will, most always, fear for their livelihood; they will fear intimidation and retaliation in the exercise of their functions, and to the very security of their jobs.
In these cases, it is not the public that these witnesses will fear; rather, it is the Secretary-General or agents acting under his authority.
It is imperative therefore that staff members can be confident that it is safe for them to testify before the Dispute Tribunal. Without such an assurance, it is most unlikely that witnesses will come forward.”
Damning indictment, indeed.
Instead of remedying the measure, the issue was further exacerbated when the Secretary-General revised ST/SGB/2017/2 on protection against retaliation and excluded Tribunal witnesses and applicants from its protection policy against the explicit advice of the ICJ, the Dispute Tribunal and the report of the Interim Independent Assessment Panel on the system of Administration of justice at the United Nations, A/71/62/Rev.1
The Ethics Office further confirmed to the ICJ on 30 May 2017 that providing testimony before the Dispute Tribunal did not qualify as a protected activity under the bulletin. Therefore, instances of retaliation against tribunal witnesses did not fall within the scope of the protection policy and lay outside the protection review by the Ethics Office.
Retaliation became so rampant that many staff who dared to denounce misconduct, in many instances sexual misconduct, were suddenly faced with the Organization fabricating post facto misconduct allegations against them.
3. The third role of the Tribunal was to ensure fair procedures for resolving disputes with staff members. There is no fairness as long as there is no equality before the law.
Or, to put it more eloquently as UNDT Judge Vinod Boolell said
“A staff member who has no alternative but to represent his or her interests before an administrative tribunal against an armada of lawyers representing the interests of the international organisation does not get equal access to justice.”
Thirteen years later, OSLA remains painfully understaffed and needs to keep up with the increasing representation requests they receive from the staff. Access to external counsels proves difficult, particularly for the category of local staff, given the expenses incurred and the fact that even if they prevail, the Tribunals do not reimburse the legal costs.
How, then, to remedy all these flaws and persistent injustice?
The 2005 Redesign Panel had well-defined recommendations to the General Assembly, but the Secretary-General did not endorse the most critical ones:
The UNDT should have the power to grant final and binding relief by ordering that an appointment be set aside. The Secretary-General did not endorse this recommendation.
The regulations should be amended to allow a post to be declared vacant by the Secretary-General if the appointment process was flawed. This will ensure respect for the rule of law. The Secretary-General did not endorse this recommendation. The current practice and jurisprudence are that an appointment, once made, cannot be set aside no matter how flawed the appointment process is. Besides the fact that the Appellant is barely compensated in cases of irregularities in appointment and selection, many of those irregularly appointed have maintained their positions even though the entire appointment process was a fraud and many lacked the stipulated qualifications. Unlike the UNDT/UNAT, the ILO Administrative Tribunal can order reinstatement and thus vindicate staff.
The UNDT should be able to order exemplary or punitive damages in exceptional circumstances. The Secretary-General did not endorse this recommendation. The UNDT/UNAT cannot order punitive damages, but the ILOAT does. Requests for punitive damages are not actually meant for monetary compensation. Rather, they are awarded as a punishment and deterrent. The jurisprudence of the ILOAT clarifies that it is not the unlawful act itself that will result in such an award but rather the intention to harm that accompanies it.
In order to achieve an effective change in management culture and to properly address the prevailing perception that the present system shields managers from accountability, the Redesign Panel proposes that they personally answer for their acts and decisions and that the formal justice system entertain applications for the enforcement of individual financial accountability. The Secretary-General did not endorse this recommendation.
Instead, the UNDT/UNAT have limited power for referral for accountability, but as we have seen in a previous post, not only were these never implemented, but no one can legally define the meaning of referral for accountability in the United Nations.
With no punitive damages, financial accountability, and a diluted power of referrals, it is no wonder that senior managers can do as they please. Nothing illustrates more the brazenness of senior managers than a former ASG who, when advising her Head of Department at the USG level, said:
“just sack him, Mr. USG, the maximum he can do is file an appeal and get two years’ salary.”
Well, yes of course, as long as this money flows from taxpayers’ and member states’ money and not from their own pockets, keep those appeals coming.
One question remains: why commission all these independent experts and waste resources if such recommendations are never implemented?
Note: This post is to be read in conjunction with the previous one.
The UNDT has recently proposed amendments to its rule of procedures Annex I of the Report of the Secretary-General on Administration of Justice A/77/156. In its introductory paragraph, page 30, the UNDT recalled that the “current rules of procedure were adopted before the Tribunal became fully operational and were based more on projection than on feedback from practice”. It makes perfect sense since it’s been twelve years since the new justice system was adopted.
One entity did not like it: the legal offices representing the Secretary-General.
In brief, the UNDT’s proposed amendments to its Rules of Procedure restore a more balanced approach to justice, benefitting staff, and helping curtail the SG’s maneuvering in court proceedings, which are many. One consistent tactic of the legal offices is to, for example, refrain from calling witnesses during the oral hearing to avoid their cross-examination by the Judges and the opposing parties and thus to limit the evidence to written testimonies or to OIOS reports.
Read and decide which entity aims to enhance a culture of accountability and justice and which one continuously aims to obstruct it.
Article 16 on Oral Hearing: the UNDT is moving towards making the Oral Hearing compulsory whenever there is an appeal contesting the imposition of a disciplinary measure. All statements, allegations, and witnesses must stand the test of scrutiny before the Tribunal.
The Secretary-General objects and recommends that the corresponding paragraph be entirely deleted. (ref. p. 55 – A/77/156)
Article 17 on Evidence: the UNDT reinforces the principle of evaluating evidence to ensure it meets the requisite standard of proof by applying logic and common sense. The UNDT will further draw adverse inferences from a refusal of a party to disclose a document in their possession and may thus consider the facts alleged by the opposing party as proven. As we all know, most of these documents are in the control of management, not staff.
The Secretary-General objects and considers that the UNDT is attempting to rewrite the staff regulations and rules. According to the SG, such changes must be considered under the UNDT Statute and not its rules of procedure and are thus subject to GA approval. (Ref. p.55 p.56 -A/77/156).
Article 26 on Protection of personal data in publication of decisions: The UNDT seeks to use the initials of staff members instead of their names appearing in all judgments similar to the ILOAT practice and in justified circumstances to anonymize it. OSLA has supported this proposal and noted that the publication of the names causes long-term irreparable harm and prejudice to an applicant, even when the applicant is successful. (Ref. p.57 p. 58 – A/77/156).
The Secretary-General objects to this proposal citing issues of transparency. A review of all names published in UNDT and UNAT will show that not a single senior manager’s name was published in UNDT/UNAT judgments, but it was always the names of the staff members accused of misconduct.
With this pattern, the GA resolution A/RES/65/253* that had envisaged more than a decade ago :
“….to establish a new, independent, transparent, professionalized, adequately resourced and decentralized system of administration of justice consistent with the relevant rules of international law and the principles of the rule of law and due process to ensure respect for the rights and obligations of staff members and the accountability of managers and staff members alike”
will soon become obsolete, and justice will be denied to all staff members.
Staff members prefer to avoid the UN system of justice. With regards to UNDT, they describe it as a cumbersome process, clearly representing a disparity in representation powers, leaning more towards management, not doing enough of what it should be, and quickly disposing of cases, particularly termination cases. As to UNAT, one former UN senior official described it as a “damage control” body aiming solely to reduce the indemnities granted by UNDT and reverse accountability referrals.
According to statistics, less than 5% percent of staff prevail in UNAT. Enough to deter any staff member from lodging a decision for review in the first place.
Despite this grim depiction, the Secretary-General is now intent on bringing the entire system of administration of justice to its knees. So that the 5% percentage we referred to above could soon shrink to, well, Nil.
How can this be? We start by examining a typical case of alleged misconduct to understand the following:
A staff member is accused of alleged misconduct. They go through the disciplinary process, and the sanction of termination for misconduct is applied to them.
On to the appeals process to establish whether that sanction was lawful and whether the staff member is guilty of misconduct.
When termination is a possible outcome in disciplinary cases, the standard of proof in the UNDT is that of “clear and convincing evidence,” which means that there is significant evidence supporting the finding of misconduct, and there is very little information suggesting the opposite.
This standard of proof is much lower than the one applied by ILOAT, which is “beyond any reasonable doubt” and which compels the investigative and the reviewing bodies to undertake diligent and meticulous work to establish evidence. The ILOAT standard of proof is the standard applicable in criminal liability and hence, offers a shield for staff, guarantees a higher threshold of justice and fairness, and makes it a little bit more difficult for the organization to get rid of staff under false or fabricated allegations.
The investigative body in most cases is OIOS which has been consistently criticized for being the Secretary-General’s right arm in most investigations. Independence and impartiality are frequently at stake since the USG of OIOS reports directly to the Secretary-General. Nowhere is this more apparent than when the subject of an investigation is a senior official at USG and ASG levels.
Many OIOS investigation reports fall below OIOS’s manual of “standard of investigations” published on its website. OIOS investigators frequently focus solely on inculpatory evidence and disregard exculpatory one. Investigators display a selective approach when it comes to witnesses. OIOS also has its fair share of internal problems and office politics, and its investigation reports are often based on one-sided testimonies.
When a staff dismissed for alleged misconduct goes through the taxing appeals process, the Judge will normally convene an oral hearing per Article 16(2) of the UNDT Rules of Procedure.
The accused then has an opportunity to cross-examine his accusers before the Tribunal.
UNAT has stressed the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses by referring to Wigmore, who defined cross-examination as “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”
Finally, there is the onus of proof which in case of termination is mainly on the Secretary-General, meaning that it is incumbent on the SG to provide clear and convincing evidence before the Tribunal leading to the conviction of the staff member of misconduct.
So we have a standard of proof that is lower than other jurisdictions, an investigation body OIOS that is not independent and whose reports raise doubts on matters of probity and competence, an oral hearing that “normally” should be held, and an onus of proof incumbent on the Secretary-General in cases of termination for misconduct.
And so, in 2022, both the UNDT and UNAT overturned termination decisions for staff accused of misconduct, in one case acquitting the staff and in another remanding the case to UNDT for a de novo review.
In the first case, the Secretary-General/Respondent failed to secure the presence of witnesses/complainants to allow their cross-examination, thus defeating the purpose of the oral hearing and relying solely on the OIOS investigation report and unsworn testimonies of the complainants.
“The evidence, according to the UNDT, thus pointed to the possibility that the complainants may have had ulterior motives for making the complaints…the failure to call witnesses by the Secretary-General and the denial to the applicant of an opportunity to cross-examine his or her accusers, especially in serious cases, may very well result in a finding that the Secretary-General has failed to meet his burden of proof leading to a rescission of the contested decision”.
The UNAT went on to criticize the OIOS:
“The evidence presented by the Secretary-General in this case was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. He relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances, double hearsay. The Secretary-General called no witnesses to prove his case. The Secretary-General’s approach and his failure to call these witnesses was akin to a prosecutor in a criminal trial simply handing in a written report of the police recommending a prosecution on a criminal charge, without calling the investigating officer or any of the relevant witnesses to the crime. It is inconceivable that any court could return a conviction on so incomplete an evidentiary basis.
The Secretary-General should not proceed to discipline in serious cases before being satisfied that, in addition to a finding of probable cause by OIOS, there is evidence available that will attain the standard of clear and convincing proof before the UNDT. To do otherwise is to risk a travesty of justice inconsistent with the role of the United Nations as the custodian of human rights. “
Both judgments from the UNDT/UNAT are bold and reflect an accurate depiction of the failure of the SG’s disciplinary process from A to Z. They also send a clear signal that the Tribunal’s role is not to sit idle when confronted with an absence of a factual determination of the alleged misconduct with the required standard of proof. The Tribunal has finally asserted some of its judicial powers, which were given to it in the first place following the report of the Redesign Panel in 2005 on the overhaul of the system of administration of justice at the request of the GA.
Let’s recall that the GA resolution 63/253 establishing the new system of justice called for the establishment of a new, independent, transparent, professionalized, adequately resourced, and decentralized system of administration of justice consistent with the relevant rules of international law and the principles of the rule of law and due process.
And yet it seems that the SG and his legal officers are now intent on reversing this whole reform by unlawfully paving the way for what can be described as restraining orders severely limiting the role of the Tribunal, particularly in what relates to its pivotal role in assessing evidence and deciding whether such evidence is sufficient for the imposition of a disciplinary measure.
Ironically even the now-defunct JAB/JDC, which were not formal judicial bodies, had this authority, but the SG now believes that the UNDT and UNAT should be deprived from this power.
And so unknown to the staff, the Secretary-General has discreetly proposed to the General Assembly to amend the UNDT Statute of the UN Dispute Tribunal in his report A/77/156 on the administration of justice.
The Secretary-General proposes (in para 128 of the SG’s report to the GA A/77/156) to add a paragraph 4 to article 9 of the statute of the Dispute Tribunal to read as follows:
“In hearing an application to appeal an administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure, the Dispute Tribunal shall pass judgment on the application, determining whether the decision was a reasonable exercise of the Secretary-General’s authority based on the evidence before the Secretary-General at the time the administrative decision was taken. The Applicant shall bear the burden of showing that the decision was not a reasonable exercise of the Secretary-General’s authority.”
The proposal, if adopted, shifts the burden of proof to the Applicant, which is a skewed approach to reversing roles in the process as the UNAT has provided that “there is no overall onus on the staff member to prove his innocence.”
It further deprives the Tribunals of its core function: assessing whether the evidence that the SG and his legal officers present meets the required standard of proof. Therefore, the Tribunal’s judgments will become a de facto rubber stamp for the SG’s decisions.
The SG and his representatives were further concerned in para 127 of the SG’s report A/77/156 about the operational independence of OIOS due to the Tribunal’s review of OIOS reports. As if the Tribunal had no right to review and assess the validity and credibility of OIOS reports.
It so happens that the cases above related to sexual exploitation and abuse, so the SG’s representatives jumped on the opportunity to exploit it under the zero-tolerance policy and brand it as a dangerous practice of the Tribunal. As we all know, it is a very appealing and vital issue to donors and member states.
Well, first, if the SG and his representatives need any reminder of the failure of the UN system till now to protect staff members from sexual harassment, indeed, we can provide a list of all the survivors that the UN itself retaliated against for daring to report managers in the system.
Second, the UNDT and the UNAT judgments criticized the standard of evidence provided by the SG, the voiding of the oral hearing element, and the defective OIOS investigations. All these deficiencies are not only found in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse but are routinely depicted in other cases entirely unrelated to sexual exploitation, such as Aahooja UNDT/2019/033 cited below:
“It is unfortunate that the decision-maker did not appear to consider the nature and quality of what was said to be evidence of the misconduct of the Applicant. The contested decision fails to consider the actual evidence and to provide any adequate analysis thereof. It is important for a decision maker to differentiate between assertions made by an investigator and the actual facts as proven. The consideration of hearsay material is not a consideration of actual evidence. The production of hearsay evidence by an investigator is entirely inappropriate unless properly corroborated. It denies a staff member under investigation his or her rights to be able to test the actual evidence. All a person proffering hearsay evidence can respond is that it was what was told to them. The failure to obtain even basic proofs of evidence, rather preferring to place reliance on unsupported assertions, does nothing to provide proof of a matter.
…. there were serious shortcomings in the manner in which the investigator conducted the investigation and the manner in which the findings of fact were presented in the investigation report.
…If the investigation had been conducted in a competent and proper manner, the investigation report would not have presented the facts as it did.”
One must wonder, therefore, why the SG and his representatives didn’t report their concerns at the time to the General Assembly and accused the Tribunal, as they are doing now, of “attempting to redefine the authority of the SG to impose disciplinary measures on staff who have engaged in misconduct.”
For one, it was not a sexual misconduct case, so less appealing to member states and donors.
Second, proposing changes to the UNDT statute has to go through GA/ACABQ and the Six Committee, so it takes time.
Third: there was a better shortcut: dismiss the Judge who issued the judgment and was later linked to the Reilley case. Judges, as we all know, are appointed at the D-2 level and paid by the UN. They, too, have financial commitments and careers.
The dismissal did not deter the UNDT and UNAT from issuing judgments that exposed and ridiculed the so-called disciplinary process leading to the imposition of disciplinary measures.
The removal of Judge Rowan Downing did not suffice to dissuade the Tribunal from exercising its mandate.
So now the Secretary-General’s next move is to render the entire Dispute Tribunal moot.
The UN has all that it takes: Ethics Offices, an Ombudsman, numerous policies, SGBs, ST/Ais addressing unsatisfactory conduct, investigations, discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority, a decentralized system of administration of justice, a code of conduct, Oath of Office and above all its Charter:
“We The People Of The United Nations Determined
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”
But do its senior managers have morality and ethics?
This post looks closely at Settlement Agreements, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), Agreed Terminations, and Separation Agreements in the United Nations. Sophisticated designations and expressions are all used with the same ultimate goal:
Deter staff from speaking up and cooperating with audits and investigations, employ the existing disparity in the status of power to intimidate staff and coerce them into forced resignations, and offer unjustified financial incentives (i.e., bribery) to lure staff and silence them in return for them signing agreements that prevent them from legally mentioning or pursuing any claim of wrongdoing and misconduct against the senior officials.
Instead of encouraging a safe working environment where staff can report inappropriate behavior without fear of retaliation, these agreements promote an unethical environment.
The Organization uses these agreements for four reasons, the last one being the most innovative as well as representing a direct breach of the UN’s rules and regulations:
Retaliate against a staff member who reported wrongdoing and coerce them into a forced separation signing the agreement, thus limiting the scope of future reporting or limiting the extent of the damage to an organization’s reputation;
Use artificial restructuring reasons to force staff into the coerced separation or face an often unlawful and arbitrary performance management process;
Quietly and diplomatically ask senior officials to leave the organization instead of facing the usual disciplinary process;
Strangely and, as of recently, use agreed termination for staff about to retire to reward them for their loyalty to senior managers.
In 2020, Action Against Prohibited Conduct reported that “one certain outcome of the use of NDAs in the UN was that – it entrenches the culture of silence that has protected and propagated the organizational culture of loyalty above all else. The UN and other international organizations are far from placing an embargo on such settlements.”
Due to their confidential nature, there is little access to these agreements, and thus the practice remains largely unchallenged. However, aborted or unsuccessful attempts are often described in UNDT/UNAT and ILOAT judgments. The examples and excerpts below highlight the widespread unethical practices in various UN and other international organizations.
“The complainant challenges the lawfulness of the mutually agreed separation agreement which he signed as part of the implementation of the “consolidated transformation plan.” The complainant, who was employed under a permanent contract was called to an individual meeting during which he was invited to sign a Mutually Agreed and he would forgo any right of appeal under the threat of being dismissed without compensation for unsatisfactory performance if he did not sign the separation agreement. The Tribunal notes the manifest unlawfulness of the conditions in which the signature of the separation agreement was obtained.”
“When UNICEF failed to secure his agreement to the termination of his contract by consent, pressure was applied to him to force a decision to accept severance terms by mentioning that the incident with his UNON identity card could be used against him as a charge of misconduct. “
“The former CG caused her severe prejudice when he presented her with an offer of blackmail and bribery to coerce her into resigning; In the present case, it is apparent that the former CG offered the Applicant the option of resigning and receiving a positive recommendation instead of being terminated. If substantiated, such a practice is a blatant violation of the UN’s core values.”
“By leading the complainant to believe that she had underperformed, the Global Fund abused its authority and put the complainant under unlawful pressure, which vitiated her consent in signing the separation agreement, which she did under the false impression that she had underperformed. As the offer of a PIP was unlawful, the separation agreement signed by the complainant is null and void on the grounds that she signed it under duress.”
“it is unacceptable that a supervisor would agree to modify a mid-term review, which had already been submitted to the Department of Human Resources, and would promise to give a false review of the staff member’s performance to a future potential employer. An international civil servant could always apply and be selected for another post within the UN system. However, it would be against the interests of the UN if a staff member were to be selected to a post on the basis of an evaluation from a previous employer, which does not reflect the reality of the staff member’s performance.”
But the most egregious use of termination and settlement agreements are the ones that the Secretary-General uses to politely and discreetly ask senior officials to resign instead of imposing the same disciplinary threshold under chapter X of the rules, which applies to the rest of the staff.
The SG’s official spokesperson frequently uses the subtle expression “separated from the organization” in reference to senior officials fired. But were these senior officials actually fired? For the external audience, maybe. However, UN staff with access to HR data know they were not. They signed settlement agreements with the SG’s office.
The SG’s office has consistently refused to disclose the disciplinary measures applied to senior officials. These measures must be made equally public, similar to the Tribunal’s judgments, in the interest of transparency and accountability. Senior officials are not a separate staff category and are subject to the same regulations and rules.
Recently, a most ludicrous use of agreed termination has transpired in one of the organizations as reported in the OIOS audit of ESCWA report 2022/88 para 38, whereby the organization offered to staff who were about to retire a lucrative termination agreement package and where there were no criteria for the staff identified to have received such a package.
“(b) agreed termination
ESCWA identified staff for separation on early retirement and offered agreed terminations to 13 staff members who were nearing retirement. However, there were no documented criteria for identifying candidates for termination and there was a risk that the process could be viewed as lacking objectivity.”
There goes the accountability framework for funds received from donors and member states.
The use of termination agreements in the UN and other international organizations contradicts the principles and core values the UN advocates for in its mandates.
“We The People Of The United Nations Determined
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”
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.
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.
It is established jurisprudence that an international organization has the right to restructure its departments and abolish posts during the process. However such processes are frequently undermined by unfairness and lack of transparency with staff. There are, of course, departments and units that have genuine organizational and operational needs to restructure and many succeed in transforming their businesses.
Others are not so well-versed.
We know the drill by now: a staff is problematic, underperforming, not loyal, deadwood, not wanted, too cooperative with staff union, too uncooperative with management… and the list goes on..
Administrative issuances, rules and regulations are not helpful tools for management in this respect. The alternative course of question is almost always recourse to a consultant, review of structure (also sometimes referred to as restructuring, realignment, streamlining of resources, improved approach of conducting business, etc…) which in turn leads to reassignment and/or abolishment of post and most often termination of contracts.
This leads to a flurry of disgruntled staff, low morale and the inevitable lengthy and draining process of appeals.
To the sorrow of many and the content of others, those appeals frequently fail for want or proof: meaning staff are unable to provide the applicable evidentiary standard supporting their appeal and claims, because they have very little information available to them with respect to the irregularity of the decision. Apart from senior management and senior HR staff, very few staff have access to HR analytics, budget documents, GA draft propositions, dates of approval…
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.
On the applicable evidentiary standard, Judge Graeme Colgan, in one of the cases, took time to detail his criticism of the application of the presumption of regularity standard, in cases of abolition of posts:
“… 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….. In such situations, 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”.
Some things need to be changed and it’s certainly not the staff members.
