Scribd
Upload
375 views5 pages

UN Tribunal Order On UN Management Concealing Email

Ban's UN Withheld Email While Breaking Union, Evicts Press, Lawless By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, May 4 -- The UN is increasingly a lawless organization. It refused to even show up in court after killing 10,000 people in Haiti by introducing cholera, through unscreened peacekeepers. This year Ban Ki-moon's UN has shown that journalists at the UN have no due process or appeals rights. Ban's Under Secretary General for “Public Information” Cristina Gallach issued a letter throwing Inner City Press out on two hours notice, without once speaking to Inner City Press - but while being listed in the then-withheld Office of Internal Oversight Services audit as implicated in the Ng Lap Seng bribery scandal. She should have recused herself - but Ban's UN is lawless. Journalists have no due process, but staffer members supposedly have the UN Dispute Tribunal. But consider a May 3, 2016 UNDT Order Inner City Press has obtained (while the UNDT has yet to put it on its website). In it, UNDT Judge Ebrahim-Carstens questions why the UN Secretariat withheld from production an email about firing Emad Hassanin as First Vice President of the UN Staff Union: “The second email produced by the Applicant (time-stamped 3:01 p.m.) appears to be relevant to the issues raised at the hearing. It is unclear why this email was not produced by the Respondent, given that it falls directly under para. 6 of Order No. 81 (NY/2016).” Ban's Secretariat has been ordered to explain itself by May 10. At least there is a process, which we aim to continue to cover. In the case of Gallach's eviction of the Press, there appears to be no process, even as it become more and more clear that it was Gallach who violated rules of due process and objectivity. We'll have more on this. When people say “the UN” it is often unclear whether they mean the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon or, more often, the UN Security Council and its five permanent members. In covering “the UN” as a journalist, however, the need to make this distinction is not only academic. While much of the interest covering the UN beat is the diplomatic theater of the Security Council and sometimes the General Assembly, Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat, or more specifically his Under Secretary General for Public Information Cristina Gallach, control media access to this theater. Normally this would pass without notice. But now that Ban and specifically Gallach are caught up in the UN bribery scandal, with Ban's Secretariat having impermissibly changed a document to name one of alleged briber Ng Lap Seng's companies and Gallach having negligently allowed Ng's Global Sustainability Foundation to hold an event in the UN Visitors Lobby and to sponsor the UN's slavery memorial, the gatekeepers objectivity is no longer clear. Why should the UN Secretariat, with these conflicts of interest, be able to ban some media from covering the Security Council, or the General Assembly meetings in the ECOSOC and Trusteeship Council chambers? Why, as happened on April 26, should Ban and Gallach get to decide which media can see into the Security Council's ostensibly closed door “Arria formula” meeting on Western Sahara, through the in-house EZTV system Gallach provides those to whom she gives and doesn't revoke office space, leaving others to wait out in the hall? How is Ban Ki-moon allowed to, without due process or any way to appeal, have whomever he put in as head of the Department of Public Information decide which journalists to reward with access, and which to punish, to the point of throwing their files in the street? Video here and here, petition here. This has happened in 2016, Ban's and Gallach's last year on the job. Inner City Press, which has covered both UN corruption and the Security Council's diplomatic game for a decade, was abruptly ousted and evicted on Gallach's orders, despite an informal appeal to Ban, who said, “That is not my decisi

Uploaded by

Matthew Russell Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
375 views5 pages

UN Tribunal Order On UN Management Concealing Email

Ban's UN Withheld Email While Breaking Union, Evicts Press, Lawless By Matthew Russell Lee UNITED NATIONS, May 4 -- The UN is increasingly a lawless organization. It refused to even show up in court after killing 10,000 people in Haiti by introducing cholera, through unscreened peacekeepers. This year Ban Ki-moon's UN has shown that journalists at the UN have no due process or appeals rights. Ban's Under Secretary General for “Public Information” Cristina Gallach issued a letter throwing Inner City Press out on two hours notice, without once speaking to Inner City Press - but while being listed in the then-withheld Office of Internal Oversight Services audit as implicated in the Ng Lap Seng bribery scandal. She should have recused herself - but Ban's UN is lawless. Journalists have no due process, but staffer members supposedly have the UN Dispute Tribunal. But consider a May 3, 2016 UNDT Order Inner City Press has obtained (while the UNDT has yet to put it on its website). In it, UNDT Judge Ebrahim-Carstens questions why the UN Secretariat withheld from production an email about firing Emad Hassanin as First Vice President of the UN Staff Union: “The second email produced by the Applicant (time-stamped 3:01 p.m.) appears to be relevant to the issues raised at the hearing. It is unclear why this email was not produced by the Respondent, given that it falls directly under para. 6 of Order No. 81 (NY/2016).” Ban's Secretariat has been ordered to explain itself by May 10. At least there is a process, which we aim to continue to cover. In the case of Gallach's eviction of the Press, there appears to be no process, even as it become more and more clear that it was Gallach who violated rules of due process and objectivity. We'll have more on this. When people say “the UN” it is often unclear whether they mean the UN Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon or, more often, the UN Security Council and its five permanent members. In covering “the UN” as a journalist, however, the need to make this distinction is not only academic. While much of the interest covering the UN beat is the diplomatic theater of the Security Council and sometimes the General Assembly, Ban Ki-moon's UN Secretariat, or more specifically his Under Secretary General for Public Information Cristina Gallach, control media access to this theater. Normally this would pass without notice. But now that Ban and specifically Gallach are caught up in the UN bribery scandal, with Ban's Secretariat having impermissibly changed a document to name one of alleged briber Ng Lap Seng's companies and Gallach having negligently allowed Ng's Global Sustainability Foundation to hold an event in the UN Visitors Lobby and to sponsor the UN's slavery memorial, the gatekeepers objectivity is no longer clear. Why should the UN Secretariat, with these conflicts of interest, be able to ban some media from covering the Security Council, or the General Assembly meetings in the ECOSOC and Trusteeship Council chambers? Why, as happened on April 26, should Ban and Gallach get to decide which media can see into the Security Council's ostensibly closed door “Arria formula” meeting on Western Sahara, through the in-house EZTV system Gallach provides those to whom she gives and doesn't revoke office space, leaving others to wait out in the hall? How is Ban Ki-moon allowed to, without due process or any way to appeal, have whomever he put in as head of the Department of Public Information decide which journalists to reward with access, and which to punish, to the point of throwing their files in the street? Video here and here, petition here. This has happened in 2016, Ban's and Gallach's last year on the job. Inner City Press, which has covered both UN corruption and the Security Council's diplomatic game for a decade, was abruptly ousted and evicted on Gallach's orders, despite an informal appeal to Ban, who said, “That is not my decisi

Uploaded by

Matthew Russell Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 5

UNITED NATIONS DISPUTE TRIBUNAL

Before:

Judge Ebrahim-Carstens

Registry:

New York

Registrar:

Hafida Lahiouel

HAS SANIN
V.

SECRETARY-GENERAL

OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORDER
ON CASE MANAGEMENT

Counsel for Applicant:


Lennox S. Hinds

Didier Sepho

Counsel for Respondent:

Alan Gutman, ALS/0HRM, UN Secretariat

Page 1 of 5

Case Nos.:

UNDT/NY/2014/020

Order No.:

103 (NY/2016)

Date:

3 May 2016

Original:

English

Case Nos. UNDT/NY/2014/020


Order No. 103 (NY/2016)

Introduction

1.

On 24 March 2014, the Applicant, a staff member in the Publishing

Section, Meeting and Publishing Division of the Department for General


Assembly and Conference Management ("DGACM"), filed an application
contesting the decision to abolish his post effective 1 January 2014, and, as
a result, to terminate his permanent appointment.

Hearing of 4 April 2016


2.

On 4 April 2016, the Tribunal held a one-day hearing in relation to

the present case.

3.

Ms. Janet Beswick, Deputy Executive Officer, DGACM, was one of

the witnesses called by the Respondent. In her oral evidence she refen'ed to
an email that she had sent to OHRM and/or the Executive Officer,
DGACM, seeking guidance on the issuance of termination notices to staff

elected as officials of the Staff Union. She testified that she did not locate a
response to her email query.
4.

It is common cause that the email referred to by Ms. Beswick was

not included in the agreed bundle, nor was it produced at any point in the
course of the proceedings. At the hearing, Counsel for the Applicant sought
production of the said email, to which the Respondent raised no objections.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that the email be produced by the


Respondent.

5.

By Order No. 81 (NY/2016), dated 6 April 2016, The Tribunal

ordered the Respondent to file a copy of the email refen'ed to by Ms.


Beswick, and any response she may have received. The Tribunal also

directed the parties to file their closing submissions by 15 April 2016.

Page 2 of 5

Case Nos. UNDTiNY/2014/020


Order No. 103 (NY/2016)

6.

On 11 April 2016, the Respondent filed copies of emails dated

17 December 2013 (sent at 12:51 p.m. and 2:57 p.m.); 19 December 2013
(sent at 10:58 a.m.); and 20 December 2013 (sent at 1:42 p.m.).

7.

On 15 April 2016, the parties filed their closing submissions.

Applicant's motion of 2 May 2016


8.

On 2 May 2016, the Applicant filed a motion for leave to produce

newly discovered evidence. The Applicant submits that, on 26 April 2016,


he received newly discovered evidence previously unavailable to him.
The evidence consists of two emails dated 17 December 2013:
a.

The first email was sent at 12:51 p.m. by Mr. Magnus

Olafsson, the Director of Meetings and Publishing Division to


Ms. Mary Ann Chiulli, Executive Officer, DGACM, asking whether

DGACM had an obligation to keep the Applicant on the Staffing


Table given his election as First Vice President. (This email was

disclosed by the Respondent on 11 April 2016.)


b.

The second email was sent at 3:01 p.m. by Ms. Chiulli to Mr.

Olafsson stating that, "as an elected official, the Department will be

obliged to keep [the Applicant] on one of the Distribution posts".


(This email has not been made available to the Tribunal prior to the
filing of the Applicant's motion.)
9.

The Applicant submits that the newly discovered email (sent at 3:01

p.m.) challenges the credibility of Respondent's witnesses Ms. Beswick and


Mr. Narendra Nandoe (Chief, Meeting Support Section, DGACM), who

also testified on 4 April 2016. The Applicant further submits that the email
supports his contention that the Respondent knowingly decided to terminate

his appointment notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant had been

Page 3 of 5

Case Nos. UNDT/NY/2014/020


Order No. 103 (NY/20 ! 6)

elected First Vice-President of the United Nations Staff Union and the
recommendation of the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly that
elected officials of the Staff Union should receive full-time 'release from
their job functions.

10. The Applicant requests the Tribunal to admit the two emails
included in his motion dated 2 May 2016 as evidence in the present case.
Alternatively, the Applicant requests the Tribunal to reopen the hearing and

allow the Applicant to call the Executive Officer and the Director of
Meetings and Publishing Division, DGACM, to testify before the Tribunal.

Consideration

11.

It should be noted at the outset that the email dated

17 December 2013 (12:51 p.m.) is already part of the case record, having
been referred to by Ms. Beswick and Respondent's Counsel at the hearing

of 4 April 2016 and having been produced by the Respondent pursuant to


Order No. 81 (NY/2016) prior to the filing of the closing submissions.
12. The second email produced by the Applicant (time-stamped 3:01
p.m.) appears to be relevant to the issues raised at the hearing. It is unclear

why this email was not produced by the Respondent, given that it falls
directly under para. 6 of Order No. 81 (NY/2016).
13.

For a fair and expeditious disposal of the cases and to do justice to

the parties,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
14.

By 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, 10 May 2016, the Respondent shall file and

serve a response to the Applicant's motion of 2 May 2016, and addressing

each of the following:

Page 4 of 5

Case Nos. UNDTiNY/2014/020


Order No. 103 (NY/2016)
a.

Stating whether the Respondent has any objections to the

authenticity of the email;


b.

Providing reasons why this email was not disclosed by the

Respondent in response to Order No. 81 (NY/2016);


c.

Stating whether the Respondent has any reasoned objections

to the inclusion of this email as part of the case record;


d.

Stating the Respondent's views regarding the Applicant's

alternative request to reopen the hearing and call Ms. Chiulli and
Mr. Olafsson to give evidence before the Tribunal.

Judge Ebrahim-Carstens

Dated this 3rd day of May 2016

Page 5 of 5

You might also like