Amid UN80 Pay to Play ESCAP Fat Cats Stay In As Staff Question Fake UN Justice & UNOPS

Amid UN80 Pay to Play ESCAP Fat Cats Stay In As Staff Question Fake UN Justice & UNOPS by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack UN GATE, Aug 6 – How corrupt is today's UN under Antonio Guterres? How corrupt will it remain, given the current NextSG candidates and with USUN Mike Waltz praising "UN80" for no reason, while colluding in banning the Press? Guterres' staff tell Inner City Press things have hit a new low about which his spokespeople Stephane Dujarric and Melissa Fleming refuse all Press questions. The below is about inequitable cuts at UN ESCAP in Thailand. Now this on August 6, 2026: A UN Dispute Tribunal judge has confirmed, in a signed judgment yesterday, what staff have said privately for years: when management is the problem, the accountability system stalls, loses the thread, and quietly closes the file.  UNDT Judgment No. UNDT/2026/102 (5 August 2026) ( See the attachment) is not a grievance. It is not gossip. It is a formal finding of the United Nations' own judicial body. Here are the facts, stated plainly.  SIX YEARS. NO RESOLUTION.  December 2019: Harassment reported. Ten months: No action. The only explanation offered: "We have had three legal officers since and I am lost on this now." Judge Sean Wallace: unacceptable. June 2022: Fact-Finding Panel report delivered to OIOS and the ASG/HR. Next 34 months: Nothing. Judge Wallace: unacceptable. The Administration's conduct overall: "woefully deficient in many regards." THE CASE WAS CLOSED ON A CLAIM THE TRIBUNAL FOUND TO BE FALSE  In July 2025, OHR closed the case. Reason given: the accused official had separated from the Organization.  The Tribunal checked. He hadn't. Public records show he moved to UNOPS and stayed active in the UN system the entire time.  Judge Wallace's finding: the stated reason "seems to be untrue."  His next sentence:  "Closing a disciplinary case based on a false statement is very concerning."   How UN administration, ASG Lopez office and OIOS cheating the public. Shame on them!! They must resign immediately!  And this one, which should be read in every UN office this week:  The conduct appears to be "yet another example of the Administration avoiding accountability for high-level harassers."  That is not staff opinion. That is a sitting UNDT judge.  THIS IS A LOOPHOLE. IT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED.  An official under an unresolved disciplinary process can leave one UN entity, have the case closed because he left, and move straight into another UN entity while the file disappears behind him. This case shows that pathway is real and it was used.  Changing entity must not erase accountability. Resignation must not be an exit ramp from discipline. Rank and connections must not buy protection. OIOS Director    Suzette Schultz, HR ASG   Martha Helena Lopez and Administration   USG  Catherine Pollard  Suzette Schultz , Martha Helena Lopez   and   Catherine   Pollard   appear to be working closely to protect UN managers   from meaningful accountability. Whenever serious issues concerning UN managers   reach their desks, the response appears too often to focus on those who reported the wrongdoing rather than on the substance of what was reported. This creates a deeply troubling perception that the messenger is being targeted while management is being shielded.  Their leadership must also be held accountable for the serious deterioration in confidence in UN's   management. Staff increasingly perceive a leadership structure that has failed to address misconduct, mismanagement and legitimate staff concerns with the independence, competence and fairness expected of senior UN officials.  Staff are deeply frustrated with the way these matters are being handled. Particularly alarming is the perceived hostility toward staff members who expose alleged corruption, mismanagement, abuse of authority or other wrongdoing. Those who raise legitimate concerns should be protected and heard—not intimidated, marginalized or made to fear for their careers.  Schultz, Lopez and Pollard   must therefore answer a fundamental question: are they protecting the integrity of the Organization, or protecting management from accountability?  If senior officials fail to investigate credible allegations while turning the machinery of the Organization against those who report wrong doing, they become part of the accountability problem they are supposed to solve.  THE CONFLICT OF ACCOUNTABILITY BECOMES EVEN MORE TROUBLING: Alhagi Marong, Legal Counsel for management  What makes this situation particularly concerning is that the legal adviser representing in   UNDT/2026/102 on the side of the management   was himself previously accused of misconduct in proceedings before the same Tribunal (  UNDT/NBI/2024/049 ). According to the available record, the Administration defended him against the judgment of the tribunal and resulting consequences.  Now, the same legal officer is representing and defending UN management in a case involving harassment.  This raises a serious question about the credibility and consistency of the accountability system: How can staff have confidence in internal justice when an official who previously faced misconduct from tribunal defending the harasser?—and was defended by the Administration—is subsequently placed in a position to defend management  ?  At minimum, this situation creates a troubling appearance of institutional conflict and reinforces staff concerns that the system can become more effective at defending management than at protecting staff who report harassment, misconduct or abuse of authority.  Not talking points. Answers based on UNDT/2026/102 judgment  Who held the report at OIOS and OHR for 34 months, and what did they do with it? Who drafted the closure letter claiming separation from service? Who was responsible for verifying that claim — and did they? Who signed off on closing a harassment case on a false basis? What happened to the findings when the accused moved to UNOPS?   WHY IS OIOS HIDING IRREGULARITIES AND ALLEGEDLY RETALIATING AGAINST THOSE WHO REPORT THEM, WHEN ITS FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY—NOT TO SHIELD MANAGEMENT FROM SCRUTINY?   Every one of these decisions had a name behind it internally. Those names belong on the record — not hidden behind "the Administration."  A DOUBLE STANDARD, DOCUMENTED  Ordinary staff who are investigated move fast: administrative leave, suspension, termination, careers ended in weeks. This case shows the opposite track for senior, well-connected officials: years of delay, a false justification, and a quiet transfer instead of a resolution.  That is not two outcomes. That is one system, working exactly as designed for whoever is inside it and whoever is outside it.  Investigating misconduct is a duty. Retaliating against those who expose it is not accountability — it is the opposite of accountability.  Message to the incoming Secretary General: AN UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS OF STAFF TRUST Many long-serving UN personnel cannot recall another period in which staff have expressed such profound concern about harassment, retaliation, unequal treatment and violations of staff rights as under the current leadership.  Staff who speak out, expose alleged corruption or misconduct, challenge management decisions, or represent their colleagues may fear that they themselves will become the subject of investigation, administrative action or termination.  That should alarm every UN leader.  When staff become afraid to expose wrongdoing because they believe that speaking up could destroy their careers, the accountability system itself has failed one of its most fundamental purposes.  The United Nations cannot demand that Member States respect human rights, whistleblower protection, freedom from retaliation, due process and the rule of law while its own personnel question whether those same principles are being respected inside the Organization.  NO UN LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH A WORKFORCE THAT FEARS THE VERY INSTITUTIONS CREATED TO UPHOLD ACCOUNTABILITY AND JUSTICE.  The message to the Secretary-General, OIOS, OHR and senior Administration should therefore be clear:  Investigating misconduct is necessary. Retaliating against those who expose misconduct is not accountability. It is the destruction of accountability.  CCISUA AND STAFF UNIONS: WHERE ARE YOU?  Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) and staff unions must also confront uncomfortable questions about their own credibility.  At a time when staff require strong, independent and fearless representation, too many staff perceive their representatives as increasingly disconnected from the people they were elected to defend.  Appearing beside senior managers, taking photographs and videos at official events, posting on Facebook and social media, attending conferences and issuing statements may create visibility.  But visibility is not representation. Access to management is not an achievement if that access does not translate into protection of staff rights.  Staff representatives were not elected to become cheerleaders for management or to polish the image of senior officials. They were elected to represent staff, challenge injustice and speak when   individual staff members are too vulnerable to speak for themselves:   When colleagues raising concerns about wrongdoing face retaliation, career destruction or termination, silence or weak representation is unacceptable.  When a UN Tribunal itself describes administrative conduct  in yesterday's judgment( ) as “woefully deficient” and raises concerns about apparent avoidance of accountability for high-level harassers, where is the strong and coordinated response of international staff representation?  Where is the public statement? Where is the demand for answers?  If staff representatives show up for photos with management and go silent the moment a Tribunal exposes exactly this kind of conduct, staff are entitled to ask directly:  WHO DO CCISUA AND STAFF UNIONS ACTUALLY REPRESENT — STAFF, OR MANAGEMENT?  ONE STANDARD, OR NONE  This is not a defense of misconduct. Wrongdoing must be investigated fairly and punished when proven.  This is a demand for one standard, applied the same way regardless of grade or connections. Right now there are two: fast and final for junior staff, slow and forgiving for senior ones. This judgment proves it with a paper trail.  THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE UNITED NATIONS. IT IS A DEMAND THAT IT LIVE BY THE STANDARD IT ASKS THE WORLD TO FOLLOW.   Accountability cannot depend on grade. Justice cannot depend on connections. Resignation cannot erase responsibility. Retaliation cannot be the answer to those who expose wrongdoing. Staff representation cannot be public relations. It must support and protect the staff. WHO HOLDS THE UN'S OWN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE? Currently? No one. Not USUN, not the courts, not the EU, not BRICS(A), no one. Can you say, League of Nations? Previously: Dear Matthew Russell Lee,  The plan for abolishment from UN-ESCAP  is directed only at GS staff, while senior positions—P-5, D-1, D-2, and USG—remain untouched. The salary of a single one of these officials is equivalent to that of fifty or more local staff members. If justice truly mattered, it would be these high-level posts under review—not the livelihoods of ordinary staff. Many of these officials are beyond retirement age, largely inactive in their offices, while their administrative assistants act more like personal aides or cooks than contributors to the Organization’s actual work.  This is not about fairness—it is about selfishness and corruption. Guterres and his team have revealed themselves as weak, wicked, and corrupt. They cling to their privileges while sacrificing the most vulnerable staff, simply because they hold the power to decide.  It is therefore no surprise that more and more staff are coming to agree that the UN has become useless, especially under the failed leadership of Guterres.  Guterres appears increasingly surrounded by what staff describe as “phone-call human resource advisors and legal officers.”    Martha Helena Lopez, the Secretary-General’s senior advisor on human resources, has become emblematic of this “don’t care” policy. Observers note she looks fatigued, more focused on retirement than on strengthening governance. Rather than engaging with tribunal rulings, she and her team have defaulted to what staff now mockingly call “phone-call directives,” issuing guidance over the phone without regard to established precedent or proper review.  In New York, staff have started referring to her and her legal colleagues as “phone-call officers and advisors” because of their casual approach to matters of grave consequence. Their advice to the Secretary-General effectively shields misconduct from judicial scrutiny, entrenches his culture of impunity.  Guterres, they say, should end censorship. Application was made on June 19, 2025. 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 SDNY Press Room 500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA 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 2006-2025 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com