By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/undt1basement112109.html
UNITED NATIONS, November 21 -- The UN proclaims that it protects whistleblowers, as a way of reforming its far flung under overseen work. The UN Ethics Office, headed until April 2010 by Robert Benson, is in charge of protection against retaliation. But in a case pending in the UN Dispute Tribunal, lawyers from the UN Secretariat and UN Development Program have argued that Ethics Officer Robert Benson should not be allowed to testify in the case of a whistleblower he recommended be awarded back pay for due process violations.
On November 16, Inner City Press asked about this:
Inner City Press: If you don’t mind, I also wanted to ask you a question about the United Nations Dispute Tribunal. In a recent argument down there, the case of the “North Korea UNDP whistleblower”, Mr. [Robert] Benson of the Ethics Office had recommended that he be paid back pay for due process violations. The Office for Legal Affairs (OLA)], presumably on behalf of the Secretary-General, opposed Mr. Benson testifying to the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, saying that it wasn’t necessary, that there was no jurisdiction, and essentially saying that his recommendation of back pay shouldn’t be done. Has something changed? Because I think in July 2008 from this podium, it was said that the Secretary-General stands behind Benson’s ruling in that case. What’s changed in the interim and what explains OLA’s position in the United Nations Dispute Tribunal?
Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq: I’d have to check that up with the Office for Legal Affairs. As you know, the Secretary-General does stand by the work of Mr. Benson.
But two days later, no explanation had been provided. Mr. Benson, while confirming to Inner City Press that he will leave the post in April 2010 -- some say he wants to stay in the UN system -- declined to comment on the Secretariat's lawyers move to bar his testimony. So on November 18, Inner City Press asked again:
Inner City Press: I wanted to follow up on two things. One was that I had asked you about the position of the Secretariat with regard to the Ethics Office ruling in the whistleblower case in which OLA [Office for Legal Affairs] has said… I have a document from the Dispute Tribunal in which OLA has argued that Mr. [Robert] Benson should not testify; that his recommendation is irrelevant. You also said that the Secretary-General stands behind Benson’s work and that you checked with OLA. I’m waiting to hear how to square these two positions.
Associate Spokesperson Haq: I’ll still need to get some response from our legal colleagues on any additional issues. So, certainly we support the work of Mr. Benson and the Ethics Office. Beyond that, in terms of what the legal reasoning is, I have to check though.
Even two further days later, no explanation has been provided.
Inner City Press ventured down to another UN Dispute Tribunal hearing on November 20, to find a official of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials explaining by video conference that a staffer working on audio visual production for UNAKRT had been underperforming. Or was it that the equipment bought by UNAKRT -- already embroiled in corruption allegations -- was of the wrong kind?
These UNDT proceedings are "open," but the UN refuses to comment on or explain them. One wonders if the Office of Internal Oversight Services is watching, as testimony verges into areas OIOS is supposed to cover.
UNDT Judge Michael Adams grilled the witness, telling him "leave relevance to me." When the Office of Legal Affairs representative tried to cut off the applicant's counsel, Adams stopped both from speaking. Maybe that's what's happened to UN Ethics Officer Benson: he's been silenced. Watch this site.
