In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video, New Petition

UNITED NATIONS GATE, November 14 – At the UN World Intellectual Property Organization, whose work on North Korea's cyanide patents and retalation Inner City Press has reported on, is at it again, still  poised to terminate a whistleblower. WIPO has suspended Wei Lei from duty and given him seven days to respond to a charge letter, following a murky investigation conducted by WIPO into alleged ATM bank card fraud. It is feared that Wei will be fired on the 8th day – 16 November 2018. On November 13, UN staff unions wrote to Francis Gurry - and to UNSG Antonio Guterres, a retaliator himself, including against the Press: "Dear Mr. Gurry,
We are writing to you on behalf of the three staff federations of the UN common system, CCISUA, FICSA
and UNISERV, representing 120,000 international civil servants worldwide, regarding what would
appear to be a serious act of reprisal against Mr. Wei Lei, who holds a D2 Chief Information Officer
position at WIPO and who is also the Vice-President of the WIPO Staff Association.
We have been informed that the WIPO Administration has suspended Mr. Lei (an Australian national)
from duty and given him seven days to respond to a charge letter, following what seems to be a tainted
investigation conducted by WIPO into an alleged ATM bank card fraud.
Mr. Lei has been accused by WIPO of having used a colleague’s ATM bank card to withdraw CHF 300
from that person’s bank account at the UBS bank ATM on the WIPO premises. Mr. Lei denies the
accusation and neither UBS nor the Swiss authorities have provided WIPO with any evidence or record
that would substantiate the accusations.
The staff federations find all of this rather strange given the context. Mr. Lei was a key witness in the
investigation carried out by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) into the alleged
misconduct (procurement corruption) by you as WIPO Director General. A violation of the standards of
conduct was substantiated by the OIOS; however, Member States decided not to take any action
against you. Following the investigation, you apparently received an unredacted copy of the OIOS
report, thereby exposing the witnesses to retaliation – this is contrary to standard investigative practice
at WIPO.
We have been informed that Mr. Lei has already been investigated twice over the last two years and
cleared of any wrongdoing during both investigations.
Furthermore, he is not the only staff representative at WIPO being subjected to such type of
investigation or undergoing alleged harassment. We understand that Mr. Christopher Mason, President
of the WIPO Staff Association (WSA), would seem to be the subject of yet another such investigation
and Mr. Olivier Steele, another Vice-President of the WSA, has allegedly been informed that his fixed-
term contract will not be renewed after 31 January 2019, because of a negative performance evaluation

and his supervisor’s explicit disapproval of his activities as a staff representative, despite the fact that
he has provided twenty years of loyal service to the Organization. Additionally, the case of Ms. Miranda
Brown, former D2-level Strategic Adviser to the WIPO Director General and a prominent, blacklisted
whistleblower who was forced out of WIPO, has still not been settled by the WIPO Administration,
despite renewed legal action.
Mr. Lei, having been refused whistleblower protection by the WIPO Ethics Office appealed, in
accordance with the WIPO whistleblower protection policy, to the UNOPS Ethics Office which
subsequently granted him the status of whistleblower and the protection which is supposed to be
accorded thereto. Moreover, the UNOPS Ethics Office concluded that an independent investigation
must be conducted at WIPO to investigate the reported retaliation against Mr. Lei for having been a key
witness against you in the above-mentioned OIOS investigation. We have been informed that this long-
awaited investigation has finally been initiated but that the Terms of Reference may have been

manipulated in breach of WIPO policy.
It has now come to our attention that WIPO’s current investigation of Mr. Lei may be flawed and that
the so-called evidence may possibly have been manipulated or otherwise clearly does not prove his
culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.
We understand that, for all of the above reasons, Mr. Lei has filed a complaint with the Geneva
Prosecutor General and has expressly requested and volunteered to have his privileges and immunities
lifted so as to allow the competent Swiss authorities to conduct a proper and independent investigation.
It seems, however, that WIPO has repeatedly refused to lift Mr. Lei’s privileges and immunities
preventing the Swiss authorities to proceed with the investigation. Despite its inability to obtain
cooperation from the UBS bank, WIPO has apparently concluded the investigation and initiated
disciplinary processes against Mr. Lei for serious misconduct that is likely to result in his summary
dismissal.
Against the backdrop of allegations, OIOS investigations, WIPO investigations focused on staff
representatives, reported retaliation and the decision of the UNOPS Ethics Office that Mr. Lei must be
protected from retaliation; it makes it increasingly difficult to give credibility to any investigation
conducted by WIPO.
In line with an organization’s duty of care to its staff and to ensure that Mr. Lei is provided a fair and
independent investigation conducted by the Swiss authorities which can interact with the bank
concerned, the staff federations strongly encourage you to lift Mr. Lei’s privileges and immunities in
order to allow the Swiss authorities to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged ATM bank
card fraud. We urge you, in our capacities as Presidents of the three UN common system staff
federations, to immediately suspend the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Lei until the UNOPS
evaluation in regards to retaliation is completed, an investigation by the Swiss authorities has taken
place and the matter is finalized. We also urge you to suspend all actions against other elected WSA
officials until WSA’s complaint against the WIPO Administration has been settled by ILOAT.
Failing to do so can only lead the three staff federations to conclude that this and other investigations
against staff representatives at WIPO are contrived in order to silence any voice of criticism or respectful
dissident opinion. We would therefore insist that all ongoing forms of retaliation against the WIPO Staff
Association, whistleblowers and staff at WIPO who raise allegations of misconduct by WIPO
Administration be stopped immediately.
Lastly, we are alarmed that the policies in place at WIPO to protect staff from retaliation are still not
functioning.
We shall continue to monitor this issue closely." Wei Lei (Australian) holds a D2 level position as Chief Information Officer (CIO) at WIPO and is also the Vice-President of the WIPO Staff Association. He has been employed as CIO at WIPO since 2009.

Wei was a key witness in the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services’s (OIOS) investigation into the alleged misconduct (procurement corruption) by the WIPO Director General, Francis Gurry. The procurement corruption was substantiated;  however, typical for the UN system, Member States decided not to take any action against  Gurry. Following the investigation, Gurry was given an unredacted copy of the OIOS report, thereby exposing the witnesses to further retaliation. His WIPO's failure to protect whistleblowers has been analyzed by the Government Accountability Project, here.

Over six months ago, the UNOPS Ethics Office substantiated a prima facie case of retaliation against Wei by Mr Gurry and other senior WIPO officials. The investigation into the retaliation against Wei has apparently been delayed and now corrupted. Justice delayed is justice denied - over the past six months Wei has been subject to ongoing and severe harassment. And recently, we learned that the WIPO Administration appears to have improperly influenced the terms of reference for the investigation into the retaliation. The investigation into the prima facie case of retaliation against Wei by Mr Gurry and other senior WIPO officials appears to have been corrupted.

Worst still, during the six months' period, when the investigation into the retaliation against Wei should have proceeded and reached its conclusion, Wei has been subjected to further retaliation - of the worst form: he has been unjustly accused of fraudulently using a colleague’s ATM bank card and of withdrawing CHF 300 from that person’s bank account at the UBS ATM on WIPO premises. The colleague, who was on a temporary six-month contract at WIPO, has since left the Organization and her whereabouts are unknown. The video footage used to try to incriminate Wei was obtained from a WIPO CCTV camera located in the main building. WIPO has apparently been filming UBS clients using the ATM without the knowledge or consent of the UBS bank and without the consent of its clients, in apparent violation of the Swiss Data Protection Act and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. The UBS bank refused to cooperate with the WIPO investigation and has not confirmed that the ATM fraud actually occurred. Wei has filed a complaint with the Geneva Prosecutor General and has expressly requested and volunteered to have his privileges and immunities lifted so as to allow the competent Swiss authorities to conduct a proper and independent investigation. But WIPO has repeatedly refused to lift his privileges and immunities, and the Swiss authorities cannot proceed without this. Despite its inability to obtain cooperation from the UBS bank, WIPO has concluded the investigation and initiated disciplinary processes against Wei for serious misconduct that is likely to result in his summary dismissal. I believe that the investigation against Wei is flawed and tainted, and believe that the so-called evidence has possibly been fabricated or otherwise clearly does not prove his culpability beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no possibility for Wei to seek an injunction. Under the WIPO whistleblower protection policy only the Director General can provide interim measures. Mr Gurry has a clear conflict of interest in Wei's case. The ILO Administrative Tribunal does not provide interim measures either and the average time taken by the Tribunal to judge cases is three years. 

The apparent motivation behind the WIPO Administration's investigation would seem to be its desire to fire Wei before the long-delayed investigation into the retaliation against him by the WIPO Director General can take place... Wei will in all likelihood lose his job, livelihood and will not be able to stay in Geneva - his home for nearly a decade (as an Australian national, his residency in Switzerland is contingent on his WIPO work). The US and others have been asked to:
1) Stop the firing of Wei Lei. The UNOPS Ethics Office is currently assessing his second claim of retaliation (his being subject to a bogus WIPO investigation into the alleged ATM card fraud) and interim measures must apply.
2) Quash the bogus WIPO investigation into the alleged ATM card fraud - any investigation into the alleged crime must be undertaken by the competent Swiss authorities, in cooperation with the UBS bank. The UBS bank has not confirmed the alleged crime occurred. The alleged crime does not impact on WIPO's functions or operations. Any investigation must be conducted by Swiss law enforcement and not a private WIPO investigator.
3) Demand the terms of reference for the investigation into the retaliation against Wei Lei be redrafted so they reflect the UNOPS Ethics Office findings and WIPO whistleblower protection policy – conflict of interest must be avoided and the reverse burden must apply.
4) Demand an immediate end to/rescinding of the WIPO Director General's corrupt decisions to appoint his subordinates as the decision-maker (competent authority) in cases where he has recused himself because of a conflict of interest and where he had previously taken a negative decision or made a negative pronouncement. The appointment of subordinates in such circumstances does not cure the conflict of interest. Should Mr Gurry not be willing to rescind these corrupt decisions, there should be an external independent investigation into Mr Gurry's apparent violation of the WIPO Staff Regulations and Rules and the Code of Conduct for International Civil Servants." That's WIPO -  the wider UN of Antonio Guterres has banned Inner City Press from entering its campus since July 3, claiming that its Lieutenant Ronald Dobbins targeted ouster of Inner City Press from a speech by Secretary General Antonio Guterres on June 22 then from a meeting about his budget on July 3 were "altercations." Next this ban was extended  beyond the UN campus to the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, for a July 10 press conference by the UN affiliated but ostensibly independent World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which as Inner City Press has previously reported helped North Korea with its cyanide patents and retaliated against it staff and media. Inner City Press was e-mailed an invitation on July 2 and replied with an RSVP to cover it. Marshall Hoffman of WIPO's public relations firm Hoffman PR wrote back, "Thanks. We will see at the press conference." After that, Guterres spokesman Farhan Haq was asked why Inner City Press is banned and said it is pending a review of two "altercations" - both of which were improper and unilateral ousters of Inner City Press by UN Security's Dobbins and officers, four of whom refused to give their names. Soon, there was this follow up e-mail from WIPO's flak Marshall Hoffman: "Dear Matthew, It has come to my attention that your accreditation to the UN has been suspended pending an investigation into an incident. Given the suspension, I regret you will not be able to attend the WIPO press conference."

Now the UN has gone so far as to put Inner City Press on a "banned from UN" list it does not make public; Guterres' security nearly got Park East Synagogue security to oust Inner City Press from Guterres' October 31 speech... on tolerance. This is today's UN: the ban must be reversed. We'll have more on this - and on this: how untransparent and inaccessible is Antonio Guterres, as UN Secretary General? The day he canceled his first UN Headquarters press conference in six months, he was ironically the guest of honor of the United Nations Correspondents Association. He was scheduled to make remarks at 6 pm - but it was not in the UN Media Alert. Inner City Press, whose RSVP to UNCA was never responded to, streamed the event from the tourists' balcony, edited here. Then Guterres' UN Security guards physically ousted Inner City Press from covering the UN Fifth Committee's July 3 meeting on his proposal to fire UN staff and move the jobs- then on July 5 banned Inner City Press from entering the UN. Fox News story here, GAP blogs I and II. While Guterres' UNCA fan club said nothing, others did. Guterres blathered on about how he supported the media in Portugal - dubious - and then cuts a cake for his UN Censorship Alliance. Earlier Inner City Press asked Guterres' lead spokesman Stephane Dujarric, who previously lent the UN Press Briefing Room to UNCA, if the event was open press but he refused to answer and ran off. Inner City Press asked the spokesman from the President of the General Assembly, who is listed as attended but will not speak, why it is not in the UN Media Alert. The spokesman said to ask UNCA. But UNCA never responded to the RSVP of Inner City Press through the Free UN Coalition for Access. In the middle of the event the claim was that UN correspondents didn't have to RSVP - not what the notice said. The event was not even in the June 26 UN Media Alert. Last week, Dujarric spoonfed sound bytes to a prominent UNCA members and is working with them to try to further restrict Inner City Press, here - Inner City Press was in fact ousted on June 22, video here, story here). The Free UN Coalition for Access questions this and the propriety of this explicit focus by the UN Correspondents Association on the UN's "causes" rather than simply covering the UN as it is; it and corruption are among the reasons Inner City Press quit UNCA (and co-founded FUNCA).

On June 25 Inner City Press asked Guterres' Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq about it, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press:
on Friday there was the Eid event in which António Guterres gave a speech, and I… I want… I guess I want to put this in a general way because I don't understand it.  During the event, as the event went on, I was required to leave by a Lieutenant Dobbins and the emergency response unit.  And it seemed strange, because there were many other non-resident correspondents at the event.  So, I wanted to know… to know, one, what are the rules?  Number two, is it acceptable for a… a… UN Security to… to single out and target a specific journalist?  And I did… and I ask this because I've previously written a story about promotions in DSS [Department of Safety and Security], including Mr. Dobbins, and whatever that is, what are the provisions in the UN to make sure that security cannot abuse its powers?  So those are… I… I… I'd like you to answer that, and also they didn't give their names.  The other individuals refused to give their names.  Is that UN policy?

Deputy Spokesman:  UN Security has their policies.  Your concerns with them need to be addressed to UN Security.  I'm not going to comment on your own problems with UN Security.  Brenden, come on up.

Inner City Press: I don't understand.  This happened at a speech by the Secretary-General.

Deputy Spokesman:  No, I'm sorry, your security issues are things you're going to have to deal with.

Inner City Press: It's not a security issue.  It was done in the name of the Secretary-General.  Is he speaking tomorrow at 6 p.m. somewhere?  Can you say where the Secretary-General is speaking tomorrow at 6 p.m.?

Deputy Spokesman:  I’m not going to argue with you on this." There was more - video here.

  FUNCA timely sent this: "This is a timely response to your statement that 'The event is open to all UN correspondents, Please RSVP by FRIDAY, June 22nd to RSVPUNCAEvents@gmail.com... Opening Remarks byUN Secretary-General António Guterres, 6:00 pm (LOCATION TBC).' A UN correspondent, by choice not a member of UNCA, is hereby timely requesting to be informed where SG Antonio Guterres will be making remarks, and to cover it. Please confirm receipt and provide response. On deadline, thank you in advance." Five days later on Tuesday June 26, no answer at all. So it is not true, the claim that "the event is open to all correspondents"?

Five UN Security officers, led by UN Lieutenant Ronald E. Dobbins, pushed Inner City Press' reporter out of the UN on June 22. Inner City Press was live-streaming Periscope and preparing to write about Secretary General Antonio Guterres' claims about his visit to Mali, where he didn't even inquire into a recent case child rape by a UN Peacekeeper. With the event still ongoing, Inner City Press was approached by Lieutenant Dobbins and told that since it was just past 7 pm it had to leave the building. Video here.

 That is not the rule, nor the practice. But Inner City Press under Guterres and his head of Global Communications Alison Smale has inexplicable been at the "non-resident correspondent" level lowered from that of no-show state media like Akbhar al Yom's Sanaa Youssef, assigned Inner City Press' long time office despite rarely coming in and not asking a question in ten years.

  While Guterres and Smale have created and encourage the atmosphere for targeting the Press, Dobbins had and has his own reasons. Inner City Press previously exclusively reported on fraudulent promotions in the UN Department of Safety and Security, beginning of series here with a leaked document with Dobbins own name on it, under the heading "Possible Promotions... if Dobbins does not want Canine / ERU." Document here. Since the publication, Dobbins and a number of UN Security officers have openly targeted Inner City Press. This has been raised in writing to Smale (for eight months), for almost 18 months to Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed, whose response has been to evade questions on Cameroon and now an ambiguous smile while surrounded by UN Security. On June 25 Inner City Press asked Guterres' Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq about it, video here, UN transcript here: Inner City Press:
on Friday there was the Eid event in which António Guterres gave a speech, and I… I want… I guess I want to put this in a general way because I don't understand it.  During the event, as the event went on, I was required to leave by a Lieutenant Dobbins and the emergency response unit.  And it seemed strange, because there were many other non-resident correspondents at the event.  So, I wanted to know… to know, one, what are the rules?  Number two, is it acceptable for a… a… UN Security to… to single out and target a specific journalist?  And I did… and I ask this because I've previously written a story about promotions in DSS [Department of Safety and Security], including Mr. Dobbins, and whatever that is, what are the provisions in the UN to make sure that security cannot abuse its powers?  So those are… I… I… I'd like you to answer that, and also they didn't give their names.  The other individuals refused to give their names.  Is that UN policy?

Deputy Spokesman:  UN Security has their policies.  Your concerns with them need to be addressed to UN Security.  I'm not going to comment on your own problems with UN Security.  Brenden, come on up.

Inner City Press: I don't understand.  This happened at a speech by the Secretary-General.

Deputy Spokesman:  No, I'm sorry, your security issues are things you're going to have to deal with.

Inner City Press: It's not a security issue.  It was done in the name of the Secretary-General.  Is he speaking tomorrow at 6 p.m. somewhere?  Can you say where the Secretary-General is speaking tomorrow at 6 p.m.?

Deputy Spokesman:  I’m not going to argue with you on this." There was more - video here.

  Even if Lt Dobbins and his team and commanders wanted to interpret and twist the existing rules in a way they are not enforced against any other non-resident correspondent at the UN, the Guterres Eid al -Fitr event listed in the UN Department of Public Information was still ongoing, making it unquestionable that Inner City Press had a right to be in the UN and cover it.

   But even as Inner City Press dialed DPI's Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, getting only voice mail, Dobbins made a call and UN “Emergency Response Unit” officers arrived, with barely concealed automatic weapons. One of them repeatedly pushed Inner City Press' reporter in the back, forcing him through the General Assembly lobby toward the exit. Video here.

   UN Under Secretary General Catherine Pollard was told the ouster and did nothing, as was a Moroccan diplomat. The heavily armed UN Security officers refused to give their names when asked. Lieutenant Dobbins, with no name plate on his uniform, refused to spell his name. He said, I have my orders. From who - Guterres? His Deputy SG or chief of staff, both of whom were at the event? DSS chief Drennan? DPI chief Alison Smale?

    Inner City Press repeatedly asked to be able to get its laptop computer, which was upstairs - there was no way to have known it would be ousted during Guterres' event.

  But Dobbins and the others refused, as did the UN Security officers at the gate. Inner City Press remained there, with dwindling cell phone battery, raising the issue online to Smale, under whose watch Inner City Press has remained in the non-resident correspondent status it was reduced to for pursuing the Ng Lp Seng UN bribery case into the UN press briefing room where Guterres' spokesman Stephane Dujarric ordered it out, then had it evicted. A DPI representative, whom Inner City Press asked to call Smale, was unable or unwilling to even let Inner City Press go in escorted to get its laptop.

   Just in the past week, when Inner City Press complained of Dujarric providing only to Al Jazeera the response of Antonio Guterres to the US leaving the UN Human Rights Council, Dujarric and the Al Jazeera trio claimed to MALU that the coverage was “too aggressive.” Journalism is not a crime? Next week, Antonio Guterres is set to give remarks, to which Inner City Press has requested the right to cover response, to the UN Correspondents Association, which not only has not acted on this censorship, but has fueled it.

  Inside the UN the Eid event continued, alongside a liquor fueled barbeque thrown by UN Security. This DSS sold tickets to non resident correspondents, and allowed in people who had nothing to do with the UN, including some seeming underage. When Inner City Press audibly raised the issue to UN Safety and Security Service chief Mick Brown, he did nothing.

   The Moroccan diplomat emerged and chided Inner City Press for even telling him of the ouster, claiming that “25% of what you write is about Morocco.” Some Periscope video here. Pakistan's Permanent Representative, who hosted the Eid event, said she would look into it. Sweden's spokesperson asked whom to call in DPI and when Inner City Press said, Alison Smale, responded, Who is Alison Smale? Indeed.

  Smale has refused to respond in any way, in the eight months she has been Guterres' “Global Communications” chief, to a 5000 signature petition to restore Inner City Press to its unused office S-303 and to adopt content neutral media access rules going forward. That, and appropriate action on Lt. Dobbins and the others, must be among the next steps. Watch this site.

***

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Search innercitypress.com  Search WWW (censored?)

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2018 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for