A formal procedure for investigating allegations of misconduct against WHO’s Director General got the greenlight from the World Health Assembly on Tuesday – after six years of mostly closed door debate and deliberations.  

The procedure is the first ever to be approved by the global health body for investigating any current or future head of organization – in line with United Nations recommendations to all UN family agencies, first issued in 2019. 

But the process developed for WHO also contains a few key loopholes.  The responsibility for recommending that an investigation begin rests with  WHO’s Office of Internal Oversight Services – which operates under the wings of the WHO Director General – although IOS also files an annual report to the WHO Executive Board.

According to the text of Tuesday’s WHA decision, “Following a prima facie determination from the Office of Internal Oversight Services that indicates further analysis of the allegation is warranted, the Office of Internal Oversight Services will (1) notify the Officers of the Board (Chair, Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur); (2) notify the IEOAC Chair [WHO’s Independent Expert Oversight Advisory Committee]; and (3) transmit the allegation along with any supporting documentation and the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ prima facie determination rationale, to an EIE [an external investigative entity] drawn from a pool of EIEs as provided for in chapter C below, for further analysis.”

Effectively, this means that any current or future investigation of allegations against WHO’s top official could not even begin unless WHO’s own in-house investigators first recommend such a step – with all of the inherent conflict of interests involved. 

Moreover, even if such a case went forward, it would be overseen by WHO’s Independent Expert Oversight Advisory Committee (IEOAC). The three-member IEOAC Secretariat includes WHO’s Chef de Cabinet and the ADG for Business Operations – both political appointees and members of the Director General’s leadership team.  

IEOAC, in turn, would be responsible for choosing which “external investigative entity” should pursue any case – should a case be pursued.  And there, too, WHO’s top leadership also appears to have a final say, as per section 3.2 (c): 

“If prioritization… results in two or more equally suitable [investigative] candidates, the WHO Secretariat will further narrow that short list to identify the best candidate on the basis of availability, efficiency, quality and value for money.”

Process contrasts with the UN investigation of WHO sex abuse allegations in DR Congo

The process contrasts sharply with WHO’s management of investigations into sexual harrassment and abuse allegations against agency staff and contractors in DR Congo during the 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak. Following a public outcry over the initial media reports of abuse, those cases were turned directly over to the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) – so as to ensure a more impartial outcome. See related story here:

In WHO’s Internal Justice System, All Roads Lead to Director General

Executive Board can halt an investigation at preliminary stage

Finally, once an preliminary investigation of any alledged misdeed involving the Director General is completed, the Executive Board, a member state body with vested political interests, could choose to halt further action altogether, according to Section B3.12 of the decision agreed to by WHA: 

“In a case where (a) the EIE determines a full investigation is warranted, (b) the IEOAC’s assessment confirms that due investigative procedure has been followed and recommends proceeding to a full investigation, (c) and the Officers of the Board have grave concerns about the EIE preliminary review and the IEOAC’s assessment and recommendation, the Officers of the Board may recommend to the Executive Board not to proceed to a full investigation.”

Demands by some member states to insure a role for the EB in such sensitive investigations, was a major stumbling block issue in the years’ long debate and delays over the final drafting of a investigation procedure – which led to the compromise reached Tuesday. 

 Once a full investigation is completed, the EB would review the results and decide what final actions to take as per Section B.6.1 of the procedure, which states: 

“Upon receipt of the investigation report, the Officers of the Board will review all of these materials and decide whether to close the case or to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The Officers of the Board may request advice from the IEOAC regarding the findings.”  

US objected but is outside of the room

In discussions last year over the process, the United States delegation raised strenuous objections over some of the circularity of some of the proposed procedures – but they were outside the room this WHA, in light of the US decision to withdraw from the global health agency – at least for now. (see related story). 

BREAKING – US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr Extends Olive Branch to WHO – With Strings Attached 

And at the Executive Board meeting in January 2025, the Representative of the WHO Staff Association raised concerns about the lengthy time required for WHO IOS investigations generally, noting that for rank and file staff, “It can take up to two years for internal justice cases to be resolved.”

Member states were adamant about their role   

But in the final analysis, member states were adamant about preserving their own right of review and decision at different stages of the process, through the Executive Board gate.

“We believe that the Executive Board and the World Health Assembly remain the appropriate bodies to oversee and manage these matters in accordance with their mandate,” said the WHA delegate from Iraq, speaking on behalf of the Eastern Mediterranean Regions. Members of the Africa group, echoed similar sentiments. 

“We welcome the decision to say that the governing bodies over five while maintaining the independence, integrity and confidentiality of the investigative process,” said Botswana.  

Need for independent oversight   

Other member states appeared relieved to have settled on a formal procedure that included any role at all for external investigators – should the need arise. 

“We emphasize the importance of accountability and independent oversight, and strongly believe that an independent body selected and appointed by the EB should investigate allegations against the Director General,” said Poland, speaking on behalf of the European Union member states, nine other European nations and Brazil. 

“We are in the 11th Hour, and we count on member states collective support in finalizing this key aspect of governance reform at the WHA.  We also emphasize the need for specific mechanisms which provide detailed, ongoing oversight over the WHO restructuring and its focus and core priorities, enhancing the organization’s accountability and in the new landscape.”

Meanwhile, Norway, speaking on behalf of a group of seven, primarily Nordic nations, sounded a more positive note. “The proposed procedures… have achieved the necessary balance between independent investigation and Member States visibility, while seeking to avoid politicization of the process. This is a defining moment for WHO and its member states.”

Only Japan seemed to insert a real note of reservation about the new process, saying, 

“We generally support this. However, Japan has three points for further thoughts of implementation. First, the importance of neutrality. Second, the avoidance of politicization. Thirdly, independence of the [WHO] Secretariat, particularly the Internal Oversight Services. 

“We expect this process will be properly implemented based on key principles, and we underscore the need to constantly review and improve the process, taking into account the consistency among the process of the other UN organs.”

Image Credits: Mudassar Iqbal /Pixabay.