Yesterday, United Nations Dispute Tribunal Judge Memooda Ebrahim-Carstens issued a judgment in the long pending case of Artjon Shkurtaj, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) whistleblower who made much publicized disclosures regarding UNDP wrongdoing at its North Korean office. The judge ordered Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to award Shkurtaj fourteen months’ net base salary as compensation for the failure of the ad hoc External Independent Investigative Review Panel (EIIRP) – appointed by UNDP to investigate the case – to allow Shkurtaj to comment on adverse findings contained in its publicly released report.

According to the decision:

Even if the EIIRP did not identify the applicant as the subject of its investigation, its report contained significant adverse findings about his credibility, trustworthiness and integrity. The Tribunal finds that not only was the applicant not given an opportunity to respond to these adverse findings, he was not even made aware of the EIIRP’s concerns regarding his credibility at any point prior to the issuance of the report. The Tribunal is persuaded by the applicant’s argument that the report of the EIIRP contained adverse findings against him and that, in the particular circumstances of this case, he should have been made aware of them prior to the issuance of the report and provided with the opportunity to comment on them and provide his explanations. Therefore, the Ethics Office’s finding that there was a violation of the applicant’s procedural right to be made aware of—and to have the opportunity to respond to—the adverse findings concerning his credibility and trustworthiness was reasonable and justified. This is particularly so considering the report was made public, following which there was no further process made available to the applicant to contest these findings. This failure resulted in a violation of the applicant’s due process rights, damaged his career prospects and professional reputation, and caused him emotional distress, for all of which he should be compensated. (para. 47)

The Judge also ordered the respondent to pay an additional $5,000 as compensation for its inordinate delay in considering the UN Ethics Office’s June 2008 decision in Shkurtaj’s case. According to Judge Ebrahim-Carstens, “to date, i.e. in over two years, UNDP has not made a decision on the Ethics Office’s recommendation to compensate the applicant as stated in its report dated 27 June 2008.” Again, according to the ruling:

A United Nations Development Program (UNDP) whistleblower and GAP client was recently vindicated by the UN Ethics Committee. However, the UNDP refuses to disclose information about their investigation. After Ismail Ahmed blew the whistle on corruption in UNDP’s Somalia program, he was retaliated against by officials and transferred to another office without proper visa support. The UNDP Somalia office later told a potential employer not to hire him because of his “silly non-proven accusations.” Ahmed had reported fraudulent payments and contracts in the program, and said it had supported a company with suspected links to Islamist militants.

Written by GAP International Program Director Bea Edwards and International Program Officer Shelley Walden. Versions of this op-ed also appeared in Garden City Telegram (NJ).

The United Nations was scrambling. Reports were surfacing, based on firsthand knowledge, of U.N. peacekeepers grossly exploiting their positions by sexually abusing destitute citizens entrusted to their care.

While a remarkably similar story is currently unfolding, the allegations above emerged four years ago. Former U.N. employee Dr. Andrew Thomson witnessed these atrocities in the early part of this decade and recounted his experiences, together with other staffers, in his 2004 memoir, “Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures.” That book not only exposed sexual abuse by U.N. forces, but also described senior U.N. officials’ inactions in the face of dysfunctional U.N. security and rampant financial corruption.

Thomson’s reward for coming forward with the truth? Initially, he was fired. Due to media pressure and legal assistance from our group and others, he was rehired months later and promoted to a position of greater responsibility. In the wake of Thomson’s revelations and the Oil-for-Food scandal, then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced he was working to improve whistleblower protections for all U.N. workers. In late 2005, Annan issued a whistleblower protection policy that was a breakthrough for freedom of expression at intergovernmental organizations. This crucial response had impeccable logic: given the breadth of the organization, U.N. officials could not possibly monitor all staff all the time. The organization had to rely on its own staffers to report on serious misconduct and gross ethical lapses.

Written by GAP International Program Associate Shelley Walden

In order to regain the trust of its staff and uphold its mission, the United Nations must create comprehensive whistleblower protections modeled on international best practices. It is essential that the organization also continue to reform its internal justice system and enforce impartial investigation practices. Failure to do so makes the UN vulnerable to future scandal, corruption and a substantial loss of credibility.

As a champion of human rights standards – and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption – the UN should be at the forefront of protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. Toward that end, in 2005, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a whistleblower protection policy that was a breakthrough for freedom of expression at intergovernmental organizations. The policy, which was developed after months of consultation with experts in whistleblower law, established an independent Ethics Office, with staff responsible for receiving appeals from whistleblowers.

This policy was put to the test in 2007, when six whistleblowers from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) – the UN’s global development arm – came forward, believing that they would be protected. These whistleblowers’ allegations ranged widely, identifying UNDP misconduct in North Korea, violations of procurement regulations in a climate change mitigation project in Africa and unauthorized altering of security reports in Turkey. Last August, the UN Ethics Office reviewed one of these cases and ruled in favor of the whistleblower. In response, UNDP administrator Kemal Dervis asserted that UNDP was not subject to the jurisdiction of the UN’s Ethics Office.