Commonwealth Secretariat replies.

Your cover story Trouble at the Common-wealth (Aug/Sept issue), contains a high number of factual inaccuracies, and makes selected use of material which is often taken out of context. It is regrettable that your magazine did not take the basic step of cross-checking the facts with the Secretariat before publication.

There appear to be two major planks to your story--the first involves a dispute over a Commonwealth Secretariat contract of employment with one individual, Professor Victor Ayeni. The second concerns the report of the Independent Investigation Panel set up by the Commonwealth secretary-general to look into certain allegations made against him and other senior staff by Prof Ayeni.

In respect of the former, Prof Ayeni was given--and accepted--a single-term, three-year contract as director of the Governance and Institutional Development Division in October 2003. It is the Secretariat's position that it was made clear to him at the time that he would get only one contract.

Generally, senior staff may be given up to two contract terms, but single-term contracts are not unusual. This approach allows the Secretariat to promote the rotation of staff to allow nationals of all 53 member countries to serve in the Secretariat. The policy also allows the regular infusion of fresh thinking in the fast-changing landscape of global development issues. Commonwealth member governments have approved this policy.

When his contract as director was drawing to a close, Prof Ayeni received formal notice, as required under the rules. He did not pursue internal Secretariat procedures to address any grievances he might have held but subsequently made serious allegations against the secretary-general and some members of senior management.

After January 2006, Prof Ayeni committed serious disciplinary infractions and breached staff rules which warranted the management instituting disciplinary action against him by suspending him from the employ of the Secretariat. This suspension was upheld by a Disciplinary Board which reviewed his case. This process was conducted fully in consonance with staff rules and regulations.

It is worth noting that Prof Ayeni's allegations about the secretary-general and other colleagues only emerged after the end of his tenure at the Secretariat was confirmed. Although Prof Ayeni is no longer in post at the Secretariat, he has been paid--and has accepted--his salary, allowances and other termination benefits due him until his contract ends in September 2006.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Following the end of his contract, Prof Ayeni had--and still has--the option of pursuing an appeal through internal procedures. This includes the Commonwealth Secretariat's Arbitral Tribunal, appointed by Commonwealth governments and comprising serving and distinguished senior judicial officials from around the Commonwealth.

Turning to the second thrust of the articles you published, ie the report of the Investigation Panel. In view of the seriousness of Prof Ayeni's allegations, in April 2006, the secretary-general convened an independent panel, chaired by the former attorney-general of Trinidad and Tobago, and including a judge of the International Criminal Court, a representative of Prof Ayeni himself, and an experienced human resources person. The staff association was also represented on the panel as an observer.

The panel concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the generalised allegations made by Prof Ayeni. It did make several recommendations, including some specifically on the Secretariat's human resource policy and practice. All recommendations have been accepted in full and are being implemented.

You refer to a "climate of fear" in the Secretariat surrounding staff perceptions of their ability to speak up on issues. This is baseless. There are regular consultations by management with senior staff, and between senior staff and others in their divisions. Feedback of this nature is taken into account in planning and decision-making.

Professor Ayeni's allegation of racism being practised in the Secretariat was also considered by the independent panel and dismissed. The Secretariat considers this charge deeply offensive. African countries account for over one-third of the Secretariat staff, including one of the two deputy secretaries-general and several other senior managers.

Your publication also makes reference to the Secretariat's internal governance procedures. The description is a distortion of the governance procedures of the Secretariat which require full accountability for actions and procedures.

The Secretariat's board of governors and its executive committee are both comprised of high ranking representatives of member states and are vital, vibrant organs of governance playing the roles ascribed to them as encapsulated in the 2002 Revised Agreed Memorandum of the 53 Commonwealth member states.

Aggrieved former employees will, from time to time, seek to air their grievances publicly. It is regrettable that you have allowed New African's

reputation to be undermined by claims that have been independently and comprehensively investigated and dismissed.

Joel Kibazo

Director of Communications and Public Affairs 

Commonwealth Secretariat

New African's comments:

One, on the charge that the "magazine did not take the basic step of cross-checking the facts with the Secretariat before publication", let it be understood that we had, and still have, in our possession 255 pages of the documentation on the case and the to-and-fro between the secretary general, management committee, Investigation Panel and Disciplinary Committee on one side, and Prof Ayeni on the other side. So we had a fair idea of the thinking of all sides in the case, before we went to print. Thus, there was nothing to "cross-check". It was all in black and white in the official documentation, and it was what we printed.

Two: Our cover story was based on the Investigation Panel's Report which the Commonwealth secretary general subsequently accepted in its entirety in his email to staff on 16 June 2006.

Three: The secretary general and a number of other senior staff admitted to the Panel that no other director had received a one-contract as offered to Ayeni. The Secretariat may want to check its own records again what the true situation is.

In any case, on the one-term contract and rotation policy, this is what the Panel said, in Paragraph 26 of the Report: "... The first and fourth provisions [of the staff Handbook rules] deal with the Rotation Policy which stipulates that staff in Grades CS1-CS4 [Ayeni was CS2] normally serve two three-year contracts and are subject to the rotation policy. The second deals with inclusion in the letter of appointment of information on 'the term of the contract and whether rotation applies'. The third deals with Promotion and Applications for posts in the normal period of tenure for the higher levels.

"But this is of course subject to the exercise by the secretary general of his discretion as to the length of the term to be given, which must be exercised fairly in accordance with the rules of natural justice. However, Prof Ayeni may not have been entitled to a new contract as of right, good human resource practices would seem to dictate that in all the circumstances as adumbrated above, the normal review procedure stipulated for in the Handbook should have taken place before the Management Committee's decision of 10 October 2005 [formally denying Ayeni a contract renewal]."

The Secretariat will admit, and the Panel's Report makes it so clear, that "the normal review procedure stipulated for in the Handbook" did not take place before the Management Committee's decision of 10 October.

Four; On the climate of fear, the Panel Report says: "Based on Dr Ayeni's evidence (paragraphs 67 to 70), and what the Panel received from some Secretariat staff as well, as from the chairman of the CSSA [Common-wealth Senior Staff Association], we conclude that there is some basis for the allegation that staff are afraid to speak out because of fear of being sanctioned, but we cannot make a general pronouncement on this allegation. Of course, this may hold true for any other institution. But we believe that the perception is real enough to warrant the attention of management."

Paragraph 71 says: "But it is not Dr Ayeni alone that speaks of this. The chairman of CSSA has also told the Panel that there is a climate of fear in the Commonwealth Secretariat and that people will not speak out or allow the CSSA to take up complaints on their behalf. There is fear of retribution, he said. Another CSSA member said much the same thing, that although staff seem to have much to say, they were apprehensive about coming before the Panel because they are 'scared for their jobs'.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Paragraph 72: "Four other staff members who appeared before us offered similar information to the Panel: morale is not good, staff are distrustful of management and few now take up the secretary general's 'open door policy', that staff are generally unhappy and demotivated, and concerned about the bullying and ill-treatment of staff like Dr Ayeni and [two names withheld by New African]; staff are afraid that coming before the Panel will get them into trouble; and that there is an atmosphere of fear, both real and imagined, and this makes staff vulnerable to abuse and bullying and fear of reprisal."

In all, seven staff members, including Ayeni, told the Investigating Panel that "there is a climate of fear" at the Commonwealth.

Paragraph 73 says: "The Panel is not in a position to make any detailed determination or to say how widespread this information might be perceived amongst a greater number of Secretariat staff members. However, we think it is important that we bring this expressed information to the attention of the secretary general. It is information that seems to lend at least some form of credence to the broad allegation made by Dr Ayeni."

Still pursuing the same theme, the Panel went on to say: "Generalities of their nature [Ayeni's allegations] are not easy to substantiate. Be that as it may, it is more critical, we believe, that attention be paid to the message that comes from the allegations.

"Issues raised by Dr Ayeni do touch on the possible mistreatment of Dr Ayeni and other staff, the perception among staff of the condition of the Commonwealth Secretariat and its management, the application of the Handbook rules and procedures and the exercise of the Secretary General's discretion. For, although the provisions of the Handbook ought not to be followed slavishly in all situations, we find that at least in some instances cited to the Panel relevant provisions of the Handbook had not been followed in the determination of human resource matters."

And yet the Commonwealth Secretariat wants the world to believe, in this rejoinder, that it is New African which is making "baseless" allegations about "a climate of fear" at the Secretariat.

Baffour Ankomah

Editor