Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to be available to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT so that it could decide on the lawfulness of the Administration¡¯s decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to deny Mr. Okwakol¡¯s motion to strike certain written submissions of the Secretary-General.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Okwakol failed to report the alleged rape of the victim, and failed to report that a MONUSCO colleague knew of this rape allegation earlier and had not reported it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not accept Mr. Okwakol¡¯s defense that his failure to report was excused because the rape was not proven, or that the victim had supposedly designed an extortion scheme with respect to this incident. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr. Okwakol had pressured the victim to withdraw her rape complaint and encouraged her request for compensation for doing so. Further, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment that Mr. Okwakol committed misconduct by interfering with the investigation of these events.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that there was no infringement of Mr. Okwakol¡¯s due process rights during the investigation, or in the use of the audio-recording of the meeting between the victim and Mr. Okwakol and other MONUSCO colleagues. Finally, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Mr. Okwakol did not make a specific challenge to the sanction of separation from service for misconduct established, and denied his request for a termination indemnity.
The appeal was dismissed.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/082, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s application in which he challenged the termination of his employment due to his failure to file a report with respect to a complaint of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), and his interference with an official investigation. In Order No. 082 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s motion to strike an audio-recording that was secretly made by the alleged victim of SEA.
Mr. Okwakol appealed the Judgment and the Order.
Legal Principle(s)
Only one appeal is to be filed after the final judgment has been delivered. Interlocutory appeals on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct are not receivable.
Staff members are not required to have objective or sufficient evidence that sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) occurred before reporting a concern or suspicion of possible SEA.
Due process rights of a staff member are complied with as long as s/he has a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him.
An audio-recording of a conversation, made secretly, was admissible given the factual parameters of the case, and that the content of the conversation was extensively and thoroughly examined in hearings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.