| Amid UN80
Pay to Play ESCAP Fat Cats
Stay In As Staff Question
Fake UN Justice &
UNOPS
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
UN GATE,
Aug 6 – How corrupt is today's
UN under Antonio Guterres? How
corrupt will it remain, given
the current NextSG candidates
and with USUN Mike Waltz
praising "UN80" for no reason,
while colluding in banning the
Press?
Guterres' staff
tell Inner City Press things
have hit a new low about which
his spokespeople Stephane
Dujarric and Melissa Fleming
refuse all Press questions.
The below is about inequitable
cuts at UN ESCAP in Thailand.
Now this on
August 6, 2026:
A UN Dispute Tribunal judge has
confirmed, in a signed judgment yesterday,
what staff have said privately for years: when
management is the problem, the accountability
system stalls, loses the thread, and quietly
closes the file. UNDT Judgment No.
UNDT/2026/102 (5 August 2026) ( See the
attachment) is not a grievance. It is not
gossip. It is a formal finding of the United
Nations' own judicial body. Here are the
facts, stated plainly. SIX YEARS. NO
RESOLUTION.
December 2019: Harassment reported. Ten
months: No action. The only explanation
offered: "We have had three legal officers
since and I am lost on this now." Judge Sean
Wallace: unacceptable. June 2022: Fact-Finding
Panel report delivered to OIOS and the ASG/HR.
Next 34 months: Nothing. Judge Wallace:
unacceptable. The Administration's conduct
overall: "woefully deficient in many regards."
THE CASE WAS CLOSED ON A CLAIM THE TRIBUNAL
FOUND TO BE FALSE In July 2025, OHR
closed the case. Reason given: the accused
official had separated from the
Organization. The Tribunal checked. He
hadn't. Public records show he moved to UNOPS
and stayed active in the UN system the entire
time. Judge Wallace's finding: the
stated reason "seems to be untrue." His
next sentence: "Closing a disciplinary
case based on a false statement is very
concerning." How UN
administration, ASG Lopez office and OIOS
cheating the public. Shame on them!! They must
resign immediately! And this one, which
should be read in every UN office this
week: The conduct appears to be "yet
another example of the Administration avoiding
accountability for high-level
harassers." That is not staff opinion.
That is a sitting UNDT judge.
THIS IS A LOOPHOLE. IT NEEDS TO BE
CLOSED. An official under an unresolved
disciplinary process can leave one UN entity,
have the case closed because he left, and move
straight into another UN entity while the file
disappears behind him. This case shows that
pathway is real and it was used.
Changing entity must not erase accountability.
Resignation must not be an exit ramp from
discipline. Rank and connections must not buy
protection. OIOS Director
Suzette Schultz, HR ASG Martha
Helena Lopez and Administration
USG Catherine Pollard Suzette
Schultz , Martha Helena Lopez
and Catherine
Pollard appear to be working
closely to protect UN managers
from meaningful accountability. Whenever
serious issues concerning UN
managers reach their desks, the
response appears too often to focus on those
who reported the wrongdoing rather than on the
substance of what was reported. This creates a
deeply troubling perception that the messenger
is being targeted while management is being
shielded. Their leadership must also be
held accountable for the serious deterioration
in confidence in UN's management.
Staff increasingly perceive a leadership
structure that has failed to address
misconduct, mismanagement and legitimate staff
concerns with the independence, competence and
fairness expected of senior UN
officials. Staff are deeply frustrated
with the way these matters are being handled.
Particularly alarming is the perceived
hostility toward staff members who expose
alleged corruption, mismanagement, abuse of
authority or other wrongdoing. Those who raise
legitimate concerns should be protected and
heard—not intimidated, marginalized or made to
fear for their careers. Schultz, Lopez
and Pollard must therefore answer
a fundamental question: are they protecting
the integrity of the Organization, or
protecting management from
accountability? If senior officials fail
to investigate credible allegations while
turning the machinery of the Organization
against those who report wrong doing, they
become part of the accountability problem they
are supposed to solve.
THE CONFLICT OF ACCOUNTABILITY BECOMES EVEN
MORE TROUBLING: Alhagi Marong, Legal Counsel
for management What makes this situation
particularly concerning is that the legal
adviser representing in
UNDT/2026/102 on the side of the
management was himself previously
accused of misconduct in proceedings before
the same Tribunal ( UNDT/NBI/2024/049 ).
According to the available record, the
Administration defended him against the
judgment of the tribunal and resulting
consequences. Now, the same legal
officer is representing and defending UN
management in a case involving
harassment. This raises a serious
question about the credibility and consistency
of the accountability system: How can staff
have confidence in internal justice when an
official who previously faced misconduct from
tribunal defending the harasser?—and was
defended by the Administration—is subsequently
placed in a position to defend
management ? At minimum, this
situation creates a troubling appearance of
institutional conflict and reinforces staff
concerns that the system can become more
effective at defending management than at
protecting staff who report harassment,
misconduct or abuse of authority. Not
talking points. Answers based on UNDT/2026/102
judgment Who held the report at OIOS and
OHR for 34 months, and what did they do with
it? Who drafted the closure letter claiming
separation from service? Who was responsible
for verifying that claim — and did they? Who
signed off on closing a harassment case on a
false basis? What happened to the findings
when the accused moved to UNOPS?
WHY IS OIOS HIDING IRREGULARITIES AND
ALLEGEDLY RETALIATING AGAINST THOSE WHO REPORT
THEM, WHEN ITS FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IS
TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY—NOT TO
SHIELD MANAGEMENT FROM SCRUTINY?
Every one of these decisions had a name behind
it internally. Those names belong on the
record — not hidden behind "the
Administration." A DOUBLE STANDARD,
DOCUMENTED Ordinary staff who are
investigated move fast: administrative leave,
suspension, termination, careers ended in
weeks. This case shows the opposite track for
senior, well-connected officials: years of
delay, a false justification, and a quiet
transfer instead of a resolution. That
is not two outcomes. That is one system,
working exactly as designed for whoever is
inside it and whoever is outside it.
Investigating misconduct is a duty.
Retaliating against those who expose it is not
accountability — it is the opposite of
accountability. Message to the incoming
Secretary General: AN UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS OF
STAFF TRUST Many long-serving UN personnel
cannot recall another period in which staff
have expressed such profound concern about
harassment, retaliation, unequal treatment and
violations of staff rights as under the
current leadership. Staff who speak out,
expose alleged corruption or misconduct,
challenge management decisions, or represent
their colleagues may fear that they themselves
will become the subject of investigation,
administrative action or termination.
That should alarm every UN leader. When
staff become afraid to expose wrongdoing
because they believe that speaking up could
destroy their careers, the accountability
system itself has failed one of its most
fundamental purposes. The United Nations
cannot demand that Member States respect human
rights, whistleblower protection, freedom from
retaliation, due process and the rule of law
while its own personnel question whether those
same principles are being respected inside the
Organization.
NO UN LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE COMFORTABLE
WITH A WORKFORCE THAT FEARS THE VERY
INSTITUTIONS CREATED TO UPHOLD ACCOUNTABILITY
AND JUSTICE. The message to the
Secretary-General, OIOS, OHR and senior
Administration should therefore be
clear: Investigating misconduct is
necessary. Retaliating against those who
expose misconduct is not accountability. It is
the destruction of accountability.
CCISUA AND STAFF UNIONS: WHERE ARE YOU?
Coordinating Committee for International
Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) and
staff unions must also confront uncomfortable
questions about their own credibility.
At a time when staff require strong,
independent and fearless representation, too
many staff perceive their representatives as
increasingly disconnected from the people they
were elected to defend. Appearing beside
senior managers, taking photographs and videos
at official events, posting on Facebook and
social media, attending conferences and
issuing statements may create
visibility. But visibility is not
representation. Access to management is not an
achievement if that access does not translate
into protection of staff rights. Staff
representatives were not elected to become
cheerleaders for management or to polish the
image of senior officials. They were elected
to represent staff, challenge injustice and
speak when individual staff
members are too vulnerable to speak for
themselves: When colleagues
raising concerns about wrongdoing face
retaliation, career destruction or
termination, silence or weak representation is
unacceptable. When a UN Tribunal itself
describes administrative conduct in
yesterday's judgment( ) as “woefully
deficient” and raises concerns about apparent
avoidance of accountability for high-level
harassers, where is the strong and coordinated
response of international staff
representation? Where is the public
statement? Where is the demand for
answers? If staff representatives show
up for photos with management and go silent
the moment a Tribunal exposes exactly this
kind of conduct, staff are entitled to ask
directly:
WHO DO CCISUA AND STAFF UNIONS ACTUALLY
REPRESENT — STAFF, OR MANAGEMENT? ONE
STANDARD, OR NONE
This is not a defense of misconduct.
Wrongdoing must be investigated fairly and
punished when proven. This is a demand
for one standard, applied the same way
regardless of grade or connections. Right now
there are two: fast and final for junior
staff, slow and forgiving for senior ones.
This judgment proves it with a paper trail.
THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE UNITED
NATIONS. IT IS A DEMAND THAT IT LIVE BY THE
STANDARD IT ASKS THE WORLD TO
FOLLOW. Accountability cannot
depend on grade. Justice cannot depend on
connections. Resignation cannot erase
responsibility. Retaliation cannot be the
answer to those who expose wrongdoing. Staff
representation cannot be public relations. It
must support and protect the staff. WHO HOLDS
THE UN'S OWN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
ACCOUNTABLE?
Currently? No one. Not USUN, not the courts,
not the EU, not BRICS(A), no one. Can you say,
League of Nations?
Previously:
Dear Matthew
Russell Lee,
The plan for
abolishment from
UN-ESCAP is directed
only at GS staff, while senior
positions—P-5, D-1, D-2, and
USG—remain untouched. The
salary of a single one of
these officials is equivalent
to that of fifty or more local
staff members. If justice
truly mattered, it would be
these high-level posts under
review—not the livelihoods of
ordinary staff.
Many of these
officials are beyond
retirement age, largely
inactive in their offices,
while their administrative
assistants act more like
personal aides or cooks than
contributors to the
Organization’s actual
work. This is not about
fairness—it is about
selfishness and corruption.
Guterres and his team have
revealed themselves as weak,
wicked, and corrupt. They
cling to their privileges
while sacrificing the most
vulnerable staff, simply
because they hold the power to
decide. It is therefore
no surprise that more and more
staff are coming to agree that
the UN has become useless,
especially under the failed
leadership of Guterres.
Guterres
appears increasingly
surrounded by what staff
describe as “phone-call human
resource advisors and legal
officers.”
Martha Helena Lopez, the
Secretary-General’s senior
advisor on human resources,
has become emblematic of this
“don’t care” policy. Observers
note she looks fatigued, more
focused on retirement than on
strengthening governance.
Rather than engaging with
tribunal rulings, she and her
team have defaulted to what
staff now mockingly call
“phone-call directives,”
issuing guidance over the
phone without regard to
established precedent or
proper review. In New
York, staff have started
referring to her and her legal
colleagues as “phone-call
officers and advisors” because
of their casual approach to
matters of grave consequence.
Their advice to
the Secretary-General
effectively shields misconduct
from judicial scrutiny,
entrenches his culture of
impunity.
Guterres,
they say, should end
censorship. Application was
made on June 19, 2025. 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
|
,
