| Another Case of UN Racism On
Which Guterres Won't Answer Press So Petition
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Appeal SG
Response
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
UN GATE, Sept 4 –
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.
Then on Augst 29
we noted 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.
Since
then, UN Spokespeople Stephane
Dujarric and Melissa Fleming
have request Inner City Press'
written requests to for
comment on this. Meanwhile,
there's an online petition, here.
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.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
