±¬ÁÏÍø

Mr. Bwalya appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused ±¬ÁÏÍøDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

The Tribunal found that there was ample justification for the decision maker¡¯s plausible conclusion that the Applicant breached his obligation to disclose an actual, or possible, conflict of interest. Although only evidence on a balance of probabilities was required, the evidence presented surpassed that standard and was clear and convincing.

The fact or possibility of such personal interest could impact negatively on the perception of integrity, independence and impartiality required of the Applicant as an international civil servant. The Applicant had a duty was to disclose the actual or...

The Tribunal found that, as Country Director, in instructing the most junior staff member within the chain of command in the procurement process, to forge a document and by acting on that document through his endorsement and approval of the Formal Request which was misrepresented, the Applicant breached the Organization's cited rules and regulations. Additionally he violated paragraph 24(e) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Legal Framework, Section 3 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Policy on Fraud and other Corrupt Practices applicable at the time (±¬ÁÏÍøDP Anti-Fraud Policy) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDP¡¯s Guidelines and Procedures on National Implementation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected an application by the Staff Union of the ICTY for leave to file a friend-of-the court brief under Article 17 of its Rules of Procedure on the scope of review of the Secretary-General¡¯s decision in disciplinary proceedings and the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, on the basis that the facts and legal issues were not so complex that the brief would assist it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in exercising judicial review, may interfere with the exercise of the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion in disciplinary proceedings against a staff member on the ground...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that it would have been...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly declined to accept...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the whole reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was misconstrued and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA vendor. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was...

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that ±¬ÁÏÍøDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability...