In September 2018, the US State Department reported to the Congressional Appropriations Committees that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a Specialized Agency of the United Nations (UN) System, lacks best-practice whistleblower protections.

The case of whistleblower Wei Lei featured prominently in that report. Lei’s experience as a UN staff member on the receiving end of continuing reprisal for exposing corruption at the highest levels of WIPO shows two important consequences of a failure to protect whistleblowers:

  1. Such failure exposes ethical staff members to irreversible retaliation.
  2. As a consequence, corruption and misconduct flourish because ethical witnesses are rightly afraid to speak up.

Lei disclosed that Francis Gurry, the Executive Head of WIPO, steered a contract to a friend. Lei then became a key witness in a high-profile investigation conducted by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS). The investigation confirmed his allegation and recommended that WIPO Member States take action against Gurry.But they did not. Gurry remained in place throughout the process. He was therefore able to intimidate whistleblowers and influence decision-makers.

During the 2016 WIPO Assembly, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto declared that WIPO Member States shared the responsibility to protect WIPO staff and others who participated in the investigation and whose identities were disclosed to Gurry. Unfortunately, the Ambassador’s intention did not prevent Gurry from retaliating against Lei, and his repeated appeals for relief within WIPO, including to the Chief Ethics Officer, were either ignored or suppressed.

On April 6, 2018, Lei disclosed additional suspicions of Gurry’s misconduct to the Co-Chairs of the WIPO Coordinating Committee. These new allegations also concerned the managers of the oversight offices, themselves.

In response, the Co-Chairs directed Lei to file his report of misconduct with the alleged culprits – the Ethics Office. This inherent flaw in the Internal Justice system applies throughout the UN System. It is riddled with obvious conflicts of interestin which the guilty are tasked with investigating themselves. They may serve as both the defendant and the judge in retaliation cases. They then cite the outcomes of their processes as if they were objective and fair.

In this case, the chairs of the WIPO governing body instructed a whistleblower to ask the accused to investigate themselves.

Nonetheless,the UN Office for Project Services Ethics Office, to which the earlier retaliation complaints had been referred, concluded that Lei had reported a prima facie case of retaliation and recommended an independent investigation.

Now, six months later, that investigation is stalled. In contrast, WIPO placed Lei under investigation with alacrity and carried it out. He is charged with fraud, involving the use of a WIPO colleague’s bank card for a withdrawal of roughly $300 from the ATM inside WIPO.  This is the third time that Lei has been investigated for petty and bogus allegations in the last two years, although he had never before been investigated for anything – ever.

The first two allegations are already dismissed.

Based on the redacted draft report produced by the investigator, Lei observed that she simply made bold dispositive assertions against him, with no evidence. We understand that WIPO has now concluded its investigation despite non-cooperation from the bank concerned and a lack of hard facts. We believe that this fact-free investigation report will be used in the coming days to charge Lei with misconduct and terminate him.

This can occur even as Member States look on and lament the flaws in the policy and process.  Rather than simply exacting future improvements to the policy, the Member States must:

  1. Protect Lei from current retaliation;
  2. Expedite the investigations of his allegations of misconduct by strictly following the time limits stipulated in the current policies;
  3. Protect Lei while the investigations are ongoing. This may include, but is not limited to:
    1. Instructing the WIPO Director General to refer the current investigation against Lei to the competent Swiss authorities;
    2. Instructing the Director General to stop any further harassment or retaliation against Lei;
    3. Instructing the Director General to recuse himself and all WIPO personnel, who either were the subjects of allegations or are subjected to the Director General’s input in their performance evaluation, from administrative decisions concerning him.