I introduced Mr. Rajesh Singh, very briefly yesterday because it is difficult to determine what course to follow in presenting this information to the public in light of the fact that I have escalated the complaint to the Director General of WIPO, Mr. Francis Gurry.
WIPO has seen a recent history of procurement related cronyism/corruption complaints in recent years, starting with one against Mr. Gurry himself that was filed by the former Deputy General Director, a US citizen named James Pooley, in 2014(https://regmedia.co.uk/2014/07/08/wipo_report_james_pooley.pdf).
When an American Intellectual Property blogger came into possession and published that report (posted below in its entirety), he was contacted by WIPO's attorney and threatened with criminal libel if he refused to remove the post from his blog. He did so, but a number of news organizations picked up the story, and Mr. Pooley's report was finally published online in 2018 by the editor of fearless UK technology website The Register (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/11/28/wipo_whistleblower_investigation/):
The Register reports as follows (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/25/wip_boss_francis_gurry_secret_report/) regarding the investigation into the conduct of WIPO Director General Gurry:The secret UN report into the behaviour of WIPO boss Francis Gurry has found him guilty of “conduct... inconsistent with the standards expected of a staff member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.”That entire elicited a series of stern questions for WIPO from the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), a Union of employees working at the EU Patent Office (EPO) (https://suepo.org/public/WIPO%20Criminal%20Complaint%20Questions.pdf), which I've also posted below the Pooley report in its entirety. Those questions address the legality of WIPO's threatening response to publication of a whistleblower's allegations of corruption, etc., by a Union composed of people with the requisite knowledge of the laws of Switzerland and the EU, as well as regulatory policies governing UN affiliated Agencies like WIPO.
The chair of WIPO's General Assembly Colombian ambassador Gabriel Duque is still refusing to release the full report into the WIPO boss, despite urging from WIPO's staff council, several member states and the US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee.
Note that the allegations against WIPO Director General Gurry were widely reported in the media, but the report remains secret. For example, a few other media outlets that have covered the incident:
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/29/threats-and-censorship-wipo-style/id=49323/
http://www.innercitypress.com/wipo15retaliationicp011020.html
Accordingly, the above does not make for a situation inspiring confidence that any sort of justice will come about as a result of the escalation to Director General Gurry of the Complaint that I have filed in relation to the procurement process at WIPO related to translation of Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) documentation from Japanese to English, work that I have personal knowledge of from my experience working on from 2009 through 2017.
The first aspect of my Complaint to WIPO relates to the concealing of Contract Award information that is required under UN procurement policy to preserve transparency in the procurement process to be publicly disclosed in a transparent manner on the UNGM website.
IPO Director Singh has acknowledged in his response that said information is required to be disclosed, but attributed the fact that it wasn't to a 'systematic inconsistencies', and never addressed the allegations I made, supported with email evidence that several WIPO employees (first and foremost, Ms. Sally Young) refused to disclose the information and misled me as to their legal requirement to do so. However, in his response, Mr. Singh "advised" me not to disclose details of my Complaint:
5. I advise you to keep this matter confidential, in accordance with Investigation Policy paragraph 28, which requires IOD and "all others involved" to protect the confidentiality of "all investigative matters" and provides that "( ... ) breach of confidentiality( ... ) may amount to misconduct."Following are excerpts of the documents he cited, which are available in pdf form online (e.g.,: https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/oversight/iaod/investigations/), starting with the Investigation Policy (IOP/IP/2019/1) on the above-linked WIPO page, with the following paragraph 28:
28. Confidentiality shall be maintained with respect to all investigative matters by the Director, IOD, designated investigators, and all others involved[14]. IOD shall keep confidential the identity of the source of the initial allegations of misconduct or other wrongdoing and disclose it on a need to know basis only where required by the legitimate needs of the investigation and/or any subsequent proceedings. In addition, investigation plans and schedules, strategies or terms of reference relating to an investigation shall not be shared or distributed outside of IOD. Breach of confidentiality in relation to IOD investigative activities may amount to misconduct.From the WIPO Internal Oversight Charter: https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/oversight/iaod/pdf/charter_2015.pdf)
Footnote: [14] Internal Oversight Charter, paragraphs 18 and 43.
E. CONFLICT OF INTEREST18. In the performance of their oversight work, the Director, IOD and oversight staff shall avoid perceived or actual conflicts of interest. The Director, IOD shall report any significant impairment to independence and objectivity, including conflicts of interest, for due consideration of the IAOC.Note that there is also an Investigation Manual.
43. The Director, IOD shall be appointed by the Director General after endorsement by the IAOC and the Coordination Committee. The Director, IOD shall have a non-renewable fixed term of office of six years. On completion of the fixed term of office he/she shall not be eligible for any further employment in WIPO. Steps should be taken, where possible, to ensure that the start of the terms of the Director, IOD should not be the same as that of a new External Auditor.
(https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-wipo/en/oversight/iaod/investigations/pdf/investigation_manual.pdf). That document contains the following paragraphs (my emphasis):
27. The confidentiality of an investigation shall be observed by the Director, IOD, designated investigators and anyone else involved in the investigation, including the complainant, the subject, witnesses, observers, interpreters, and all other individuals required to assist IOD in its investigative activities.
28. All persons so involved shall not communicate to any person information or evidence in connection with an investigation, including the fact itself of an investigation, except to their legal counsel, if any. They may also communicate with the Ombudsman11 or the Chief Ethics Officer12. A person may inform his/her supervisor that he/she will be interviewed by IOD so as to obtain permission for an absence related to an investigation, but may not give any information related to the investigation to his/her supervisor.Without going into detail, I will post a slightly redacted version of the delayed response (required 6 weeks for preliminary evaluation) from Mr. Singh to my Complaint, followed by my answer to his somewhat intimidating threat to hold me accountable for misconduct should I disclose the details of my Complaint. Since I sent the COMPLAINT ESCALATION to Director General Gurry the same day, I will refrain from going into further detail so as to allow the official process to take its course.
Here are the reports by former Deputy Director of WIPO, James Pooley, as well as the questions from SUEPO.
