¹ú²úAV

The inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal confers it with power to deal with contemptuous conduct and is necessary to safeguard its judicial functions. This power need not be defined in the Tribunal’s Statute or in its Rules of Procedure. Willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s orders is contempt and is a direct attack upon the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and its power to undertake the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted in its Statute by the General Assembly. UNON management while disregarding the authority of UNAT in Villamoran on the duty of parties to comply with interlocutory orders even where an appeal had been filed, refused to obey the orders of the Tribunal and continued to adopt every means to alter the status quo ante. UNON officials by their actions in this case have engaged in strong arm tactics and acted as if they make their own laws in a way that no decent organization can be proud of, least of all the United Nations Secretariat. As a global organization that, among other things, has set up at least a unit whose mandate is the promotion of the rule of law worldwide, the Secretary-General’s attention needs to be called to the actions of those of his officials who trample on the enduring principle of the rule of law and thereby enthrone and elevate impunity. It is trite law that even if Counsel should believe that the Court order is incorrect he/she must still comply promptly or risk the imposition of sanction. Counsel did not bother to maintain the status quo before deciding to advice disobedience of the Tribunal’s Order. The argument that counsel was intending to appeal and therefore could alter the status quo is, to say the least, farfetched. A Court Order can only be reversed by an appellate Court. Counsel cannot take the law into their own hands and settle the clients rights according to his/her notion of what is right. The Director General of UNON has overall authority in all decisions and actions taken by the UNON management. This means that she is accountable for such actions and decisions. The Director General is accountable for the unprofessional conduct and high-handedness exhibited in this case by UNON’s Legal Counsel under her watch.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal referred the case to the Secretary-General, under art. 10(8) of its Statute, for the purpose of considering what action should be taken in respect of the conduct of a) the Director General of UNON in dealing with the complaints made by the Applicant and disregarding the Tribunal’s orders, and b) the UNON’s Legal Adviser in advising disobedience of the Tribunal’s orders.