By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive
UNITED NATIONS, February 4 -- Former Secretary General Kofi Annan's fight to receive two pension from the UN has been decided in his favor, in a so far unreported ruling that reversed the embattled chief of the UN Pension Fund, Bernard Cocheme.
The UN Administrative Tribunal's Judgment Number 1495, which Inner City Press has obtained and is putting online here, deals with the narrow question of whether the Pension Fund correctly determined that former S-G Annan should not receive the full pension benefits he believes should be afforded to him.
In his filings before the Tribunal, Annan argued that his understanding of the word "suspended" to mean deferred until a later time. But the Pension Fund argued that the word "suspended" meant that Annan "agreed to forfeit his pension benefits during the period he served as Secretary-General."
The judgment explains that Mr. Annan's case represented an "unprecedented situation for the UNJSPF" in that Annan "was the first UN staff member in the history of the Organization to be elected to this high office."
Despite the seeming double-dipping, Annan is found be eligible to receive both his full pension benefits as a result of his career as a UN staffer, in addition to those benefits provided to a former Secretary-General. (And see Footnote Analysis, below).
The judgment raises a question, in the wake of the UN Justice System's other recent judgment, exclusively reported by Inner City Press, which strongly criticized the current DGACM boss Shaaban M. Shaaban. That decision portends a future decision on whether Shaaban should be held personally accountable for the payment of $20,000 in "compensatory damages" to a DGACM jobseeker. On February 3, Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky quietly announced that Ban would appeal the Tribunal's decision, but failed to explain on what basis Judge Adams had erred in his decision.
Nesirky answered Inner City Press' February 3 question by inserting into the "Briefing Highlights" that the UN would appeal. This was not put in the transcript, nor apparently was it conveyed to Inner City Press.
Nevertheless, when Inner City Press on February 4 asked Nesirky about it, he said, you have your answer. But on what basis is Ban appealing? You have your answer, Nesirky said.
Article 12 of the Statute of the UN Administrative Tribunal allows either party to submit a request for revision or correction of judgment. A question is: Will Ban try to request a "revision" or "correction of judgment" in this case?
Speaking of Annan(s), Inner City Press was told by a whistleblower that a relative, Roberta Annan, was given a consultant's contract by UNDP / the Global Environment Fund. Inner City Press asked, and received multiple denials. For example, wehlers [at] thegef.org replied, "we have no employee by the name of Annan."
Inner City Press returned to its sources, and told UNDP the name of the person under whom Roberta Annan was working: Julia Wolf. Then this admission / denial:
Subject: answers
From: Stephane Dujarric at undp.org
To: Inner City Press
Matthew, On Roberta Annan:
There is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF. She was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very much value her work. As for her supposed relationship with Kofi Annan, she has no direct relations with the former Secretary-General and does not know him personally.
Stephane Dujarric
Director of Communications
UN Development Programme
Inner City Press asked , "I want to understand your Roberta Annan answer:
"As for her supposed relationship with Kofi Annan, she has no direct relations with the former Secretary-General and does not know him personally."
As I asked, what IS the family relationship?
"There is in fact a "Roberta Annan" working as a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project on climate change adaptation funded by the GEF. "
What does the project consist of? Is she based in New York? Why is there a UNOPS consultant on a UNDP project funded by GEF? -- why didn't UNDP hire its own consultant? Please explain.
"She was hired through a competitive process and her supervisors very much value her work."
Please describe the competitive process (by UNOPS?) to hire this consultant: how many applied, how advertised, how many interviewed, etc. Thanks
To which the only reply was
The project in question is www.adaptationlearning.net . You can all the information you need there. As the project is a multi-agency project, there is nothing surprising to find a UNOPS person working there. As I said previously, she was recruited through the usual competitive process.
Regarding Roberta, I really have nothing else to add except to say that she does not know Mr. Annan personally and has no direct family link with Mr. Annan. I am not in the habit and will not start to ask staff about their family genealogy going back several generations.
Again, feel free to publish my response in full.
Watch this site.
Footnote analysis: a long time UN Pension Fund insider whom Inner City Press respects has this analysis of the Annan decision:
1. Irony that UNAT closes its door with what, most likely, will ne the most famous case in its history - 60 years?.
2. it proves what Inner City Press has been saying about Pension Fund: incompetent because has a management gone wild without control.
3. The Pension Board allows Cocheme to manage incompetently or use the Fund to harm or favor people, as they did with staff and consultants.
4. The UN as a whole allows Cocheme to do the wildest things.
5. This time he was stopped.
6. How can Cocheme say that Kofi Annan is not entitled to his pension when the Regulations says that he is? How can he say that they cut he voluntarily agreed to forfeit his pension when the PF Regulations DO NOT ALLOW it. [This part is not clear in the Judgement 1495], but I know it.
7. Where is the Pension Board oversight?
8. Conclusion: the Board that was mislead by Cocheme has the obligation to ask him to resign.
Time will tell. And see, www.innercitypress.com/unpf1annans020410.html
