Amid UN80 Pay to Play Alleged by Staff to Inner City Press UN Appeals Tribunal Circus

Amid UN80 Pay to Play Alleged by Staff to Inner City Press UN Appeals Tribunal Circus by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack UN GATE, June 7 – How corrupt is today's UN under Antonio Guterres? Now with Guterres bloviating about the UN Mission in South Sudan, where he wasted $300,000 on an empty plane, his staff tell Inner City Press things have hit a new low about which his spokespeople Stephane Dujarric and Melissa Fleming refuse all Press questions. Inner City Press has asked them, and others, about the newest sex abuse case against the UN. This, from whistleblowers, added to by another, sent to Inner City Press: Dear Matthew Russell Lee,  Please publish this Formal Challenge to UNAT Judgment No. 2026-UNAT-1640 Re: Reversal of Accountability Findings Against Secretary-General's Counsel Kebede v. Secretary-General of the United Nations — Case Nos. 2025-2058 & 2025-2068  The United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) erred fundamentally in vacating all accountability findings made by the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) against the Secretary-General's counsel. The duty of candour owed by a legal representative to a judicial body is an independent professional obligation. It stands on its own and cannot be extinguished by a favourable outcome on appeal. To hold otherwise is to create structural impunity for institutional counsel — and to tilt the UN's internal justice system decisively against the individual staff members it exists to protect.  The False Statement Was Objectively Established  In proceedings before the UNDT, the Secretary-General's counsel — a Senior Legal Adviser with over two decades of UN service — filed a categorical written assertion that the selection panel was composed of members who had "no prior interactions or conflicts of interest" with the applicant. This was not a qualified opinion or a legal argument. It was a statement of fact, placed before a judicial body, on a matter that was the central issue in dispute. When the UNDT compelled production of the interview panel report through two successive orders, the record unambiguously showed the assertion to be false. Two of the four panel members had extensive, documented, and adversarial prior interactions with the applicant. The UNDT's finding of a clear misstatement was not speculative — it was the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence.  The UNAT's Reasoning Creates Dangerous Precedent  UNAT reversed the accountability finding on the basis that, since bias was not ultimately proven to the requisite standard on appeal, the false statement caused no material prejudice. This reasoning is constitutionally flawed for three reasons.  First, the duty of candour protects the integrity of the tribunal itself, not merely the opposing party. Prejudice to the applicant is not the threshold for a breach of the honesty obligation under Article 4(1) of the Code of Conduct for Legal Representatives.  Second, linking the validity of an accountability finding to the substantive outcome of the appeal conflates two entirely separate legal questions. A misrepresentation does not become acceptable because the party that made it ultimately wins. That logic rewards institutional power and penalises the individuals who rely on tribunals to function honestly.  Third, UNAT vacated not only the referral to the national bar authority — which raised legitimate jurisdictional concerns — but also the referral to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the UNDT Statute. That provision exists precisely as the institutional mechanism for addressing conduct of this nature. Vacating it on the ground that there was "no wrongdoing whatsoever" goes well beyond correcting a jurisdictional overreach. It affirmatively declares the conduct acceptable.  The Systemic Consequence  The UNAT's judgment sends an unambiguous institutional signal: senior counsel representing the Secretary-General may submit unverified categorical assertions of fact to a UN tribunal, and provided their client prevails on appeal, no accountability will follow. T his undermines the moral authority of the internal justice system, discourages staff members from pursuing legitimate claims, and erodes the principle — foundational to any credible justice system — that all parties before a court, regardless of institutional standing, bear an equal and unconditional obligation of honesty.  The UNDT's accountability findings were measured, evidence-based, and institutionally necessary. Their reversal warrants serious reconsideration by UNAT and urgent attention from Member States and UN oversight bodies committed to the integrity of the Organisation's justice mechanisms. From another: The above is effectively an appeal to public opinion, Member States, and oversight bodies, as the legal track is exhausted.  Teview the parallel case on the counsel (who is named) which started after the initial UNDT judgement was published: https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/orders/nbi-2025-187.pdf  UNAT judgement overturning the order (ABN is the anonymized name of Counsel Marong).  https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/unat/judgments/2026-UNAT-1641.pdf   See also, https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/orders/ny-2026-094.pdf  What will the Disciplinary and Accountability Service responsible for sanctioning staff members misconduct do to Jacob van de Velden and Halil Göksan who are Counsel for the Respondent?   Nothing of course, because they (like Marong) works for that same exact service defending the Secretary General in cases before the UNDT!  This creates a blatant, two-tiered reality of accountability...  The Standard for Staff: In regular disciplinary cases, the Administration consistently argues that a staff member doesn’t need a malicious "intent to deceive" to be separated for misconduct. Gross negligence, reckless disregard for rules, or a failure to properly verify data before signing off on an administrative claim (like a travel expense, entitlement claims, insurance claims or a time sheet) is routinely treated as a career-ending integrity violation.  If a staff member relies blindly on data provided to them and signs a false statement, it is labeled a lack of integrity and can lead to summary dismissal. When you look at a case like Bangambila, this becomes patently clear (https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/judgments/undt-2024-055.pdf).  Look at the claims by Counsel for the Respondent against the staff member, who they fired.  --------------------------------------------------------- Self-certification  297. The Respondent stressed in its sanction letter that the Applicant is alleged to have engaged in untruthful and dishonest behavior violating sec. 1.13 of ST/AI/2018/6 by certifying the accuracy of an otherwise inaccurate form, and by merely submitting the dependency benefit claim. As such, the Respondent concluded that the Applicant failed to abide by her duty of accurate self-certification, and that she also falsely declared that she met the eligibility criteria for the receipt of a dependency benefit, when in fact she did not. She is alleged to have provided false information to the Organization.  298. The Respondent’s argument is that the Applicant was untruthful and provided inaccurate information on the P84 form. Despite her spouse being a staff member of the UN, she answered “N/A” (not applicable) to the question regarding her spouse’s UN employment. The Respondent strongly contends before the Tribunal that the Applicant did not fulfill her obligation for accurate self-certification, as she intentionally misrepresented her marital status to the Organization to receive a dependency allowance for her son to which she was not rightfully entitled.   299. Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the Applicant was obliged to disclose that her child’s father is a UN employee. Given that the father is the higher-earning UN staff member, he alone is entitled to request a dependency allowance. The Applicant did not inform the Organization at the outset, when first applying for the dependency allowance, that the child’s father was also a staff member. She failed to provide complete information and did not fulfill her responsibility for self-certification.   ---------------------------------------------------------  Bangambila was subsequently re-instated 18 months later because the Tribunal found it to be unlawful and the judgement was not appealed.  Juxtaposed against this, The Standard for Secretary General's Counsel: Conversely, in Judgement No. 2026-UNAT-1640, UNAT excused senior counsel's objective misstatement by reducing it to a "highly regrettable" administrative oversight. By ruling that counsel merely submitted documents prepared by the Human Resources department in good faith, UNAT effectively introduced a requirement of deliberate scienter (malicious intent) to sustain an ethical violation, a luxury ordinary staff members are never afforded by the Disciplinary and Accountability service. If senior counsel representing the Secretary-General relies blindly on data provided by HR and signs a false statement on the central issue of a litigation, it is labeled an "innocent mistake" and the public record is wiped clean via anonymization... When a legal representative signs a formal submission to a court, that signature is not a mechanical act; it is a legal certification that the assertions contained within are true and accurate.  If a lawyer does not have firsthand knowledge of a fact, they bear an independent professional duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry before placing that fact before a judge. The UNAT’s reasoning essentially dismantles this duty of reasonable inquiry. It allows UN's counsel to act as a passive conduit for whatever narrative the client department feeds them, effectively insulating them from professional liability if those facts turn out to be completely false. As does so much at the UN...  Guterres, they say, should end censorship. Application was made on June 19, 2025 and denied without explanation on January 12, 2026. And from USUN and Mike Waltz? Nothing. So, a FOIA request that is pending. Watch this site. *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com