Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- French soldiers in the Central African Republic allegedly sexually abused children, as exposed in a UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report leaked to the French government by longtime OHCHR staffer Anders Kompass.

Inner City Press: ...Miranda Brown in Geneva, she was a WIPA whistleblower, then she worked with Mr. [Anders] Kompass in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Anyway, she was terminated yesterday, left service of the UN, the day before she was to be interviewed by OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] about the Kompass matter.  So she's put out a statement saying she believes in part she was fired because she has witnessed evidence on Kompass' matter.  She says he shouldn't have been suspended because there are… many countries have mandatory reporting of paedophilia charges.  This is what he she claims that he did.  And that the Government accountability project has asked the Secretary-General to reinstate her given if he's interested in getting to the bottom of the Kompass/Central African Republic sexual abuse allegations.

So I wanted to know, what is the response and what's the interrelation between firing somebody that's a witness in what's said to be a very important case for the UN?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I wouldn't have any comments on the Kompass case while the information is proceeding.  We're going to allow it to continue to proceed.  And I wouldn't be able to comment at that point.

Regarding the case of… that you just mentioned, I believe Stéphane [Dujarric] commented on it just about a week or so ago.  I don't have anything to add to what Stéphane has said.

Inner City Press:  Do you still expect her to testify?  I've seen the request from OIOS for her to speak.  It seems like if you're firing her she's not going to speak.

Deputy Spokesman:  I would hope and expect if the Office for Internal Oversight Services needs some of this information for their investigation that it will be provided to them.

  But once terminated, there is no immunity. We'll have more on this.

Back on May 21 Inner City Press asked Haq:

Inner City Pres: I'd asked Gordon Brown about the alleged sexual abuse in Central African Republic, and he said there's a report.  So I wanted to ask you something.  Become aware that the OIOS's [Office of Internal Oversight Services] director Michael Stefanovic has informed the Secretary-General that he's recusing himself from the investigation.  A number of Member States have questions on this that they raised to Ms. [Carman] Lapointe, and I think that her response was, "Ask the Secretary-General."  So I'd like to know, can you confirm that the director of OIOS, Mr. Stefanovic, has recused himself?  And can you say why he recused himself?  Some say he — well, I'd just rather get your reasoning for it.  And some say it makes the reporting — how does it impact the report that apparently was what Mr. Brown was referring to as the UN's response to these events?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  I believe Mr. Brown was also referring to the fact that this is being investigated, the actual allegations — the substance of the allegations is being investigated by the French authorities.  That's where the investigation into the alleged crimes is taking place.  What this investigation is about is about the handling of documents, as you're aware.  And I wouldn't be able to comment on the [Office] of Internal Oversight Services' review of this and its own investigation until that process has concluded.  So at this stage, that process is continuing, and we'll have to wait for that process to be ended.

  Since the UN won't answer this basic question, Inner City Press now reports more. Absent from the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee's May 18 meeting was not only embattled Peacekeeping chief Ladsous,, but also OIOS' Carman Lapointe.

 In her stead for OIOS was Michael Stefanovic, who told the Fifth Committee that he has recused himself from the investigation and has written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as to why.

  This is highly irregular. If the recusal was made on a personal connection between Stefanovic and the whistleblower Anders Kompass, Stefanovic would have recused himself from the earlier investigation - but he didn't. If it were such a recusal, he would have written to Lapointe, and not to the S-G.

   For now we add this -- if OIOS Director Stefanovic has a conflict of interest, how can the UN be asking others to rely on an OIOS investigation? Inner City Press has asked a Permanent Member of the Security Council -- not France -- if an OIOS investigation would be sufficient, and has been told "No."

 Now we have this, from the Fifth Committee's May 20 meeting:

Lapointe, summoned to the meeting via her Byun-kun Min, was asked

-When did OIOS/ID start the investigation into Anders Kompass?

-Why did Mr. Stefanovic recuse himself from the Kompass investigation?

-In view of Mr. Stefanovic recusing himself, did Ms. Lapointe see any impediments for the scope of the investigation, especially as it appeared to implicate an ASG or USG in misconduct?

  Note - this is a reference to UN Peacekeeping USG Ladsous.

 Multiple sources tell Inner City Press Lapointe replied that Stefanovic told only the Secretary General, not her, that he recused himself, and that the Deputy Director of OIOS in Vienna is now "overseeing" the investigation.

So those now on the case are James Finniss, Kanja and Margaret Gichanga -- who has been asking to interview WIPO whistleblower Miranda Brown, who worked alongside Kompass for a time. We'll have more on this. It is a new low for the UN.

Back on May 18, Inner City Press, staking out the Budget Committee meeting, spoke with Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra when she left the meeting. Here is a transcript, followed by an exclusive summary of what happened inside the closed meeting.

Inner City Press: How did it go in there? Are their questions answered?

CdC Malcorra: Well I hope, yes. Some of them still have questions that will be answered by my colleague. I think I’ve made a point of what it is that we’re discussing here. This investigation is a UN investigation. It was led by the UN in the field when they had allegations handed to them. It was the human rights cell in the mission that led this investigation. It looks like we were absent, but it was us...

And this investigation could, at least prima facie, there were places clear enough to further investigate by the member state. And as such, the information was provided to a member state. On a separate front, is how the information is provided. And we cannot accept the irresponsibility of the names of the victims, the witnesses and the investigators shared with the member states ... it’s inacceptable. It may look like a bureaucratic approach. It’s not a bureaucratic approach...

Inner City Press: What about not telling Central African Republic authorities?

CdC Malcora: They are discussing that now.

   After the meeting ended, and Inner City Press spoke with numerous attendees - a common refrain was that the UN leadership is "in denial" - we have pieced together this summary of the meeting, and the totally insufficient answer on UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' role, a lack of recognition of his UNAMID mission's previous cover up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, which the US and UK and other say they care about, and lack of follow up on whistleblowers.

Attendees' summary of Ban Ki-moon chief of staff Malcorra:

"Malcorra said she had no idea the session would go into the specifics of CAR, she thought it was to touch upon general Sexual Abuse and Exploitation policy (several attendees were dubious and angry about this approach.)

  Malcorra said that in the case of misconduct by UN staff the procedures were in place. In this case, even when it was not UN peacekeepers the human rights cell in Bangui was there and they were the ones that initiated the investigation. It is thanks to the UN that allegations were substantiated and it was enough to decide to proceed with a further investigation.

  The wrongdoing of the UN staffer Anders Kompass was to have shared the information without it being redacted putting the victims, witnesses and investigators lives in danger. She repeated many times this was a serious breach and that she disagreed with anyone that didn’t view this conduct wrong.

   According to Malcorra the UN investigation lasted three months which allowed them to substantiate the allegations.  When that finding was final it went to the two lines of command: The head of mission in CAR and the OHCHR.  But, several asked, why didn't either of these tell the CAR authorities?

Malcorra said she would have preferred this case hadn't surfaced in the media and that it is regrettable member states have had to learn matters from the press. But that, Malcorra said, member states have to be aware that the press manipulates everything. Several states talked about the UN image and credibility to which Malcorra said she was very sad with those comments because if not for the UN these troops could have gotten away with these disturbing acts. She also said this was a clear case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. But what about the cover up? What about Ladsous?

  Malcorra said that “no other element had been taken into account” for Kompass' firing. But member states were aware of Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. As noted, one Permanent Representatives (and several other diplomats) told Inner City Press that Ladsous should resign.

  Tellingly, the sources say, Malcorra claimed didn’t recall any UNAMID coverup allegations. Tabit?

   Malcorra didn’t even address the Otis report on whistleblowers - which Inner City Press has been asking Ban's spokesman about, repeatedly -- but assured member states that due protections are in place and that an adequate policy exists.

  Malcorra said she looks forward to working further on the UN convention in paragraph 57 of the SG report on SEA and agrees that there are systemic flaws, and therefore there will be a review of all the processes.

  According to sources in the meeting -- Inner City Press asked and was told to inquiry with member states -- the  Legal Counsel and head of OLA qualified as excellent the cooperation with the French Authorities and that the lifting of immunity so far hasn’t been necessary because at this stage its very general requests of information that the UN promptly has given to the French authorities. For the sake of efficiency hasn’t gone through the lifting of immunity process but if a trial or judge becomes involved they will do it quickly at a later stage. Several member states were dubious. The EU, Inner City ress is informed, said “accountability starts at the top.”

 Malcorra left unanswered why the host state, the CAR, was not involved. She is said to have ignored the specific question on the status of the OIOS investigation. She ignored the complaints about under-reporting saying that the trend of decrease was very clear and that the USG of DFS would go into details (what he did, genially, was repeat the Secretary General's report).

  An impartial investigation was called for, from both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. There was a refrain afterward: Ladsous should resign."

  A well-placed African Permanent Representative before the meeting told Inner City Press before the meeting that Ladsous should resign. But with him conveniently absent, would others be left holding the bag, trying to explain why he, Ladsous, appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling as urging that the whistleblower resign?

Inner City Press: Iwant to ask you about these alleged rapes in the Central African Republic.  Prince Zeid [Ra’ad al-Hussein] held a press conference today.  Just as an aside, I would have liked to have seen it announced from here on this very topic.  And he said… he was asked directly about what I've been asking you about, the statement in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling that the Under-Secretary-General of Peacekeeping asked the whistle-blower to resign.  And it was said, and this is why I want to ask you, because I know you said you don't agree with it, but this was a statement that was not contested at the time by the respondent.  So, this means that the UN… the people involved saw the claim and didn't have any problem with it.  I'm not saying that that means it's true.  When you say you don't agree with it, is that a personal position or a UN position?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don't think I said I didn't agree with it.  I said you're taking it as fact.  It's his position.

Inner City Press:  Which the UN didn't disagree with.

Spokesman:  I'm just saying it's his position.

Inner City Press:  My question on this is, he said he'd like to say more, but would say it to some forthcoming, apparently, investigative commission.  Ambassador [Samantha] Power at the stakeout said the same thing, that all of this needs to be looked at independently.  So, what's the status of that?  Is the Secretariat having any role in that?

Spokesman