| UN Corrupt in
South Sudan Where
Absentee SRSG Appears by
Video But No Answers
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
UN GATE
/ Juba, Nov 21 – How corrupt
is today's UN under Antonio
Guterres? Consider South
Sudan, where UN personnel
stand accused of child rape on
which UN spokespeople Stephane
Dujarric and Melissa Fleming
have refused all Press
questions. On November 10
this, from a UN whistleblower
sent to Inner City Press:
Dear Matthew
Russell Lee,
UNMISS
Management conducted a
briefing jointly from New York
and Juba regarding CRP and
Downsizing in UNMISS. The SRSG
appeared briefly via video
link from New York—seemingly
only to demonstrate that he is
still present—despite being
expected to be physically in
Juba. For the past six months,
he has chosen to work
virtually from New York while
earning a full salary. [1 of
Tony's cronies]
During the
briefing, numerous staff
questions were raised, yet
none of them were answered by
management. Below are the key
issues staff raised:
1. Lack of
Transparency in CRP Criteria
Staff expressed serious
concern that the CRP process
was implemented without
transparency and without
consistent application of
criteria across sections and
offices. Staff wish to
understand: What
rationale and criteria were
used by Section Chiefs to
determine which categories and
numbers of staff would be
downsized? Why has
senior management not
disclosed the number of posts
identified for abolishment in
each category? This
failure to communicate
undermines confidence in the
fairness, credibility, and
legitimacy of the entire
CRP.
2. Contradiction
of Public Assurances to Member
States UNMISS management’s
actions contradict public
assurances made by the UN
Controller to Member States
that entry-level posts would
be protected during
liquidity-driven downsizing.
In UNMISS, the opposite has
happened. The exclusion
of certain
offices—particularly those
housing senior
decision-makers—has resulted
in an unfair and
disproportionate burden placed
on other sections. Staff
ask: Why were the 15%
reductions not applied
uniformly across all sections,
offices, and grades?
3. Violation of
Mandatory Provisions Under
ST/AI/2023/1 A UNMISS
broadcast dated 22 October
2025 stated: “Only staff
who are not retained within
Entity and whose appointments
are terminated are eligible
for priority consideration;
staff whose appointment end
date coincides with the date
of their separation will be
separated on non-extension of
appointment and are not
entitled to priority
consideration.” This
statement directly contradicts
the binding provisions of
ST/AI/2023/1, particularly
sections 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12,
which protect staff whose
appointments are not renewed
as a result of
downsizing/restructuring.
UNMISS cannot circumvent
mandatory protections by
allowing contracts to expire
and reclassifying separations
as “non-extension.” Doing
so: violates
ST/AI/2023/1, results in
unequal treatment,
adversely impacts staff
rights, and contradicts
established UNDT/UNAT
jurisprudence. Staff
seek clarification on how
UNMISS intends to reconcile
its broadcast with these
mandatory provisions.
4. Exclusion of
Certain Offices &
Appearance of Favoritism Staff
have noted that entire
offices—including O/SRSG,
O/DSRSG, O/COS, HR, JMAC, and
JOC, as well as their
administrative staff—were
excluded from the CRP.
This creates a clear
perception of favoritism,
violating principles of:
equal treatment,
impartiality, fairness,
and avoidance of
arbitrary
decision-making. The
exclusion of these offices has
forced other sections to
absorb a disproportionately
high number of post
reductions, further
undermining the credibility of
the process. Staff
request explanations
for: Why were O/SRSG,
O/DSRSG, O/COS, HR, JMAC, and
JOC completely excluded from
the CRP? Why are
administrative staff in field
offices subject to CRP while
administrative staff in
high-level decision-making
offices in Juba are
exempt? What is the
rationale for excluding staff
with close proximity to senior
leadership—including all D-1s,
D-2s, and their support
staff—from the downsizing
process?
5. Clarification
on Numerical Ratios for Staff
Cuts Staff also requested
clear guidance on how the 15%
reduction rule is
applied: If 5 staff are
reviewed, how many must be
cut? If the pool is 3
staff or 7 staff, what number
constitutes 15%? Clear
and consistent instructions
are necessary to ensure
transparent and fair
implementation of reductions
across all sections.
On 6 Nov,
in what seems like a
pre-approved list shared by
the UNMISS-SMG by mistake -
and now given no answers
published by Inner City Press
on its DocumentCloud here
- details some offices with
specific names of
International staff, to be
considered for cuts.
It has
happened at MINUSCA in Central
African Republic too - and no
answers from UN.
Guterres,
they say, should end
censorship. Application was
made on June 19, 2025, here.
Still as of October 7 no
answer at all from Melissa
Fleming or Stephane Dujarric.
Totally corrupt. 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
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
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 2006-2025 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
