UN Internal Injustice
internal injustice

UN Internal Injustice

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 (JAB) Panel.

The Case

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 Recommendation

"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".

The Decision

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 Postunpost.net • Copyright © 2009 • All Rights Reserved

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

UN Office of Administration of Internal Justice has just published its new website/web pages – looks eye-catching and informative – and promises to improve its contents and presentations in the following versions.  However, the tests of  user-friendliness and any interactive capability are still to be done  and   evaluated.
A quick review of the resource centre and important background documentation appear to miss out two most fundamental foundational documents: viz. (1) UN Charter and (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  This looks like missing the Declaration of Independence 1776 and US Constitution when one wants to analyse the justice and legal framework in the USA.
I have brought this "gap" to the attention of OAJ and hope this will be taken care ere long.


The fact that the UN internal justice system has had so many holes and flaws, and has left much to be desired is an open secret, and for decades the whole system has been allowed to rot is just another testimony of the pathetic human situation within UN that has been unable to build a flawless justice system.  The so called reformed UNDT & UNAT are still to prove their professional integrity and moral rectitude.
The writer represents a group of UN Pensioners in India and elsewhere who have filed a common cause appeal with the UNAT (Case # UNAT 2009-001) contending that the UN pension regulations and rules should be consistent with the foundational principles of UN Charter and Universal Declaration  of Human Rights, and the Pension Fund administrative procedures and practices should remain totally accountable, transparent and in full compliance with those foundational principles.
By all  accounts our common cause appeal with UNAT should be seen as a landmark case whereby true principles of justice, fairness and equity will be put to test and it will be seen if the reformed UN internal justice system is any worth the name it carries.

Jai Ho!