Here is the second round of the case we reported under UN Broken Justice. This case demonstrates the institutionalization of abuse of authority in the United Nations. Before we get into the case, these definitions are useful in understanding the legal terms: Appellant is the UN staff member, PAD is Performance Appraisal and Development, and Panel is the United Nations Joint Appeals Board ( ) Panel.
The United Nations Joint Appeals Board (JAB) in a report dated September 2007 stated:
"It was not clear to the Panel whether it was consistent with the UNFPA PAD procedure for to complete Appellant's 2006 PAD, given that he was no longer bound by an oath of office after retirement. The Panel noted that had made it clear that it would be 'very difficult' for him to review any PAD after his departure from New York. It also noted that had apologized more than once for the delay on his part. The available evidence indicated that had given Appellant more favorable PAD ratings than those that he finally entered on 2 August. The Panel wondered what had prompted to unilaterally change Appellant's ratings without discussing with Appellant. It found explanation self-serving and unpersuasive. It was not clear what role, if any, the UNFPA administration had played in that regard, which had been otherwise regularly monitoring the progress of Appellant's PAD procedure."
"the Panel thought it advisable and productive for Appellant's 2006 and 2007 PAD procedures to be supervised by a third party so as to ensure disinterested monitoring and completion".
In spite of the clear JAB recommendation to ensure fairness and neutrality in the PAD process; the UN Deputy Secretary General in a decision, dated September 2007, once gain gave the case back to UNFPA "until the due process procedures provided for under the UNFPA Policies and Procedures Manual have been fully complied with, including with regard to any outstanding PAD(s) and any rebuttal." This decision made UNFPA judge, jury and defendant in a case where it was found by the JAB to be guilty of abuse of authority. This decision deliberately ignored the recommendation to involve an impartial third party. This decision allowed UNFPA to give the rebuttal process to 3 of its staff eager to please the head of their organization, Ms. Thoraya Obaid, who was able yet again to abuse her authority without any accountability.
What do you think of the UN Internal Injustice System?!
M. Alaadin A. Morsy
The UN Post • unpost.net • Copyright © 2009 • All Rights Reserved