By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Appeal SG Response
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN
UN GATE, August 29 – How corrupt and unaccountable is today's United Nations?
Well, in November 2020 Inner City Press went to attend and report on a UN Dispute Tribunal proceeding about a case of sexual harassment in the UN, a proceeding which was announced as open to the public, as US court cases are.
But when Inner City Press signed in and gave its name, it was excluded. Later, when it obtained and published evidence presented in the case, a UN Dispute Tribunal judge ordered it to destroy the evidence or be banned from all future proceedings.
This while UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres falsely claims to have zero tolerance for sexual harassment and abuse, while himself banning Inner City Press from UN briefings now for 1251 days.
On August 24, Inner City Press - without any recording of which it was baselessly accused after UN sex abuse evidence was leaked to it by UN staff disgusted with Guterres' cover ups - live tweeted another UNDT proceeding from Nairobi, about collusion with the Ethiopian government, here and below.
Now we note this typical case of racism in the UN of Guterres: "The Applicant has served as a Conflict Resolution Officer at the P-4 level with UNOMS since September 2004. 3. The Applicant also acts as the President of the United Nations People of African Descent (“UNPAD”), an ad hoc special interest group created in 2016 to raise awareness about issues of racism in the United Nations.
4. In October 2019, in her capacity as President of UNPAD, the Applicant wrote to senior officials of the United Nations advocating on behalf of a staff member. 5. By email dated 24 October 2019, the Ombudsman informed the Applicant that she should step down immediately from any leadership role and active participation with UNPAD. The Ombudsman stated that “[her] role as president of UNPAD undermines the neutrality and independence of the office” whose role is not to advocate on behalf of any one individual employee. The Ombudsman wrote that there was a conflict of interest when the Applicant advocated for a staff member who was referred to UNOMS and there was a potential conflict of interest in future cases.
6. On 4 November 2019, the Ombudsman received an email from the Director of the Division of Healthcare-Management Occupational Safety and Health (“DHMOSH”) informing her that the Applicant, as a Conflict Resolution Officer in Case No. UNDT/NY/2021/035 Order No. 78 (NY/2021) Page 3 of 13 UNOMS, was requesting a meeting concerning a staff member she had previously advocated for as President of UNPAD. The next day, the Ombudsman responded to the Director of DHMOSH that the Applicant was not acting on UNOMS’s behalf and had no authority or standing to discuss such private sensitive issues.
7. On 1 April 2020, the Applicant began a temporary assignment with the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. 8. In early March 2021, the Ombudsman was notified that the Applicant would be returning to UNOMS, effective 1 April 2021. 9. On 8 March 2021, the Ombudsman reached out to the Ethics Office to request an opinion as to whether the Applicant’s service as President of UNPAD represents a conflict of interest with her duties as a Conflict Resolution Officer in UNOMS. 10. On 12 March 2021, the Director of the Ethics Office responded that it constituted a conflict of interest, stating that “the official duty of a UNOMS staff member to remain independent and neutral would conflict with leading and representing UNPAD and its staff special interest”. The Director of the Ethics Office continued that “it is for the Head of Entity to assess whether a particular act or omission raises a potential conflict of interest” and that staff members are obliged “to follow instructions on how to resolve the situation, including to avoid and remove the conflict or the circumstances that make it a possible conflict”.
11. On 15 April 2021, the Deputy to the Ombudsman wrote an email to the Applicant to discuss her work plan for the 2021-22 cycle. In the email, the Deputy to the Ombudsman wrote that the Applicant would directly report to him and that she would take over several focal point functions. 12. On 23 April 2021, the Ombudsman informed the Applicant that the Deputy had been placed on sick leave for the remainder of his tenure with UNOMS. Noting that the Deputy had started discussions with the Applicant on her work plan, the Ombudsman asked the Applicant to clarify whether she was still serving as President of UNPAD in order to make an informed decision on her workplan.
The Ombudsman reminded the Applicant that it had been determined that there is a conflict of interest between the work of a Conflict Resolution Officer in UNOMS and her position as President of UNPAD. 13. On 28 April 2021, the Ombudsman wrote an email to the Applicant. She stated that she understood that the Applicant was still the President of UNPAD and would not step down and asked the Applicant to clarify in writing. The Ombudsman warned that in the absence of any clarification in writing, she would proceed to take the administrative actions that she deemed appropriate. 14. On 30 April 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the Applicant that until her status with UNPAD was clarified, the Ombudsman could not complete any discussions around work assignments and stated that she had not been given any assigned work.
15. On 12 May 2021, the Ombudsman issued a written reprimand to the Applicant for the continuation of the conflict of interest. 16. On 16 June 2021, the Applicant was notified that her fixed-term appointment would not be renewed beyond its expiration on 31 August 2021. The Applicant requested the reasons for the non-renewal decision and received the following response: [The Ombudsman] advised that her decision not to renew your appointment is based on the ongoing conflict of interest with your role as President of UNPAD, which is in conflict with your position as a conflict resolution officer requiring neutrality as per the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman.
[The Ombudsman] further advised that she has repeatedly communicated the conflict of interest with you but that you have taken no action in this regard. Due to this conflict of interest, [the Ombudsman] indicated that she has not been able to assign you any work related to conflict resolution, the role for which you were recruited.
[The Ombudsman] stated that this has been the situation since your return from a temporary assignment 1 April 2020. Case No. UNDT/NY/2021/035 Order No. 78 (NY/2021) Page 5 of 13 17. On 16 August 2021, the Applicant received the memorandum titled “Separation upon expiration of appointment”
NOTE: Ms. Kamara-Joyner is a “Conflict Resolution Officer” in the Ombudsman's office, which is patently incapable of mediating or resolving a conflict in the Ombudsman's office. Close observers note that counsel for the Secretary-General is arguing that if you are black, and you take an active role in a UN organization to raise awareness of racism – you cannot get involved in drawing attention to a blatant case of racism because that would compromise your independence given your role in the Ombudsman's office. In Big Tony's UN it's perfectly OK to have a group that raises awareness about issues of racism in the UN – provided that they don't actually raise any specific examples of racism in the UN…. which rather begs the question of what purpose it actually serves. We'll have more on all this.
From August 24: now a case in UN kangaroo court in Nairobi. UNDP Country Director Samuel Bwalya is charged with conspiring with minister of Ethiopia goverment.
Bwalya's "lawyer" Edwin had his cross examination cut off by UNDP representative Esther Shamash. Then he was cut off altogether.
Bwalya's "lawyer" is back. UN "judge" Rachel Sikwese immediately rules to exclude evidence, and questioning, in this case about UN colluding with Ethiopia government / Minister. Now on next question, UNDP's Shamash objects. And the document is out.
The witness, who is being protected by UNDP's rep and it seems the judge, seems to be named Helina Tadisse. But that camera is not on. Unclear how any finder of fact would make a judgment about credibility.
Balwya's lawyer: So the Minister was very happy with the UN's work? Witness: He was satisfied, yes. Balwya's lawyer: In processing the procurement contract- Witness: I don't recall. I don't remember. Balwya's lawyer: You don't remember. UNDP: Asked and answered!
Balwya's lawyer: If we can go into the report, I will conclude. Judge: We are waiting. UNDP "counsel" - These matters are not before the tribunal. [Inner City Press: Like UN claims its giving of Uighur names to China is not in case of Emma Reilly
Bwalya's lawyer: Did you provide that to the ATA? Witness: I may have, I don't remember. Bwalya's lawyer: That doesn't help me much. UNDP's "counsel" - I'm being blindsided. [Reference to a bundle that is apparently not public.]
Now Judge lets UNDP "lawyer," who reps UNSG @AntonioGuterres , run the table. Guterres has had Inner City Press banned from UN briefing for 1249 days - and @UN_Spokesperson doesn't answer it questions, or Quinn Emanuel letter, video here.
On evidenc destruction-gate, banned Inner City Press' timely appeal has been "deferred" from Guterres' kangaroo Appeals Tribunal, until October 2022 at least, while his Melissa Fleming refuses to answer even a major US law firm - this is impunity, see below.
Now this UN report complains, "15. During the reporting period, the holding of public hearings remotely raised its own set of difficulties. The registries experienced difficulties in controlling the access to the virtual public gallery, which is not problematic in the physical courtroom. It is also more difficult to control whether the public abide by the Tribunal’s instructions, in particular the prohibition of recording the hearing." No, UN staff disgusted with Guterres' cover ups leak.
The deferral: "The June 2021 Synopsis file of UNAT judgments was published. They heard only 32 appeals, and the last appeal number heard in the session was 1468. So Inner City Press' appeal number 1502 won't be considered at a minimum until the late October 2021 session. The current estimated time from submitting an appeal to being considered is almost one year. Speedy justice? The Guterres Administration knows and exploits this. A typical UNDT case takes at least 18 months and then the appeals process takes at least a year. Hence why the Administration appeal every successful UNDT judgement by a staff member, it costs them nothing, while it costs the staff member plenty, as well as delaying any justice they may end up getting, which is usually little. Guterres' UN is corrupt - and cannot be allowed to continue banning the Press which reported on it.
In the case Inner City Press was ordered to destroy evidence of who-done-it, even the UNDT has found Padula guilty - but has insisted that he be anonymized, that is, covered up for. The shameful order is here, and recites for example that the person - Padula - covered up for
.“grabbed [AA’s] face, held her closely, leaned forward and attempted to kiss her”; b. “when [AA] resisted [the Applicant] kissing her, [he] forced [AA’s] head down and kissed her on the forehead”; c. “grabbed [BB’s] face, held her closely, leaned forward and attempted to kiss her”; d. “tried to move physically close to [AA] and [BB] while dancing, despite their attempts to keep [him] at a distance”; e. “attempted to grab [CC’s] face; when she blocked her face with her hands, [the Applicant] grabbed her hands and tried to pull them apart; when she resisted, [he] fell on her forcefully”; and f. “took and pulled [CC’s] hands to try to get her to dance, despite her resistance”.
But in Guterres' UN they do not want the public to know who did this - and the Press which exclusively published and name and evidence is banned and its written questions not answered. On the morning of February 4, 12 hours before publishing this when no answer was received from Guterres, Dujarric, Fleming, Amina J. Mohammed et al., Inner City Press in writing asked this: "what are SG Guterres comments and more importantly action on the UN Dispute Tribunal on Feb 3 confirming sexual charges against Padula - while having told Inner City Press to destroy all evidence or remain bannned, and maintaining Padula's name sealed, confirming the cover-up culture under Guterres?"
The UN claims it has to protect the identity of Padula (and will NOT report him to NYPD for any criminal offense) because they have to protect the identity of the VICTIMS - it's like Guterres' rationale for covering up genocide and mass killing, for example in Cameroon.
Inner City Press is even banned from submitting questions by WebEx, on which the International Monetary Fund for example answers its questions, as it did on February 4 about the Burma coupl. The only difference is Guterres and his corruption.
On December 21 Inner City Press filed a formal appeal with the UN Appeals Tribunal, full filing here on DocumentCloud.
And now in late January Guterres' long time Portuguese lawyer Miguel de Serpa Soares has responded, that Guterers is not waiving immunity, impunity response on Document Cloud here. Impunity.
On the morning of January 26 Inner City Press emailed Guterres and his spokespeople this question: " Given that the UNDT order destruction of evidence concerning sexual harassment inside the UN, why is SG Guterres not waiving immunity?" No answer.
We will have more, including listing more of those complicit in the UN's cover up of abuse. 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.
