Counterterrorism Blog

Today's Press Briefing at the United Nations was out of the ordinary. These briefings are usually staid affairs and fireworks are quite rare. But today's dialogue between the press and UN Spokesman Fred Eckhard had considerable tension and drama. The press wanted to know whether the UN was really going to pay some $300,000 in legal fees on behalf of Benon Sevan. The story first surfaced this morning in the New York Sun. I have attached below the excerpt from the transcript of today's UN Press Briefing for your reading. I'm sure you will be as much surprised as I was with some of Fred Eckhard answers.

EXCERPT FROM DAILY PRESS BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE SECRETARY GENERAL, TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2005

QUOTE:

Question: The other question was a follow-up to a story in the New York Sun today. The United Nations has been paying Benon Sevan’s legal fees. Is this appropriate? Is this normal practice? And why did the United Nations not announce this?

Spokesman: Indeed -- well, first of all, we haven’t paid for anything yet. But it is true that the Secretary-General decided, in principle, to reimburse Mr. Sevan for what we called “reasonable legal fees” as determined by the United Nations for services in connection with his appearance before the Volcker Commission. The payment of these fees was to be made on a strictly exceptional basis, for the purposes of facilitating the work of the Commission. Mr. Sevan has submitted some bills to us. We are reviewing them now. And as I said, nothing yet has been paid.

Exceptional -– it is exceptional. The oil-for-food programme was an exceptional programme. The Volcker Commission is an exceptional commission. And Benon Sevan was in a unique position as the head of that programme.

I’m not aware that in the past we’ve ever reimbursed staff for legal fees. I don’t believe that any other –- well there’s only one other Secretariat member charged by the Volcker Commission, Joseph Stephanides, and we have not agreed to reimburse him. So it’s Benon Sevan as the head of the Programme on an exceptional basis.

Question: And is this definitely going to go ahead? You sort of mentioned in theory. Will this decision be reviewed, or is it an agreement? I’m sorry, and whose advice was this on?

Spokesman: The Secretary-General took this advice, this decision on the advice of his legal department, the Office of Legal Affairs. And it was taken before the Volcker report came out that laid specific charges against Mr. Sevan. So I can’t say at this time whether the decision is being reviewed for the period prior to that Volcker report, but it is not our intention to reimburse Mr. Sevan for any fees since the Volcker report laid charges against him.

Question: Fred, I don’t quite understand where the justification to pay for Mr. Sevan’s legal fees comes from exactly. Maybe you could explain that again so that I can understand that. Where does this money come from? What budget within the United Nations is paying for this, and also, I was just wondering, the Secretary-General also is being looked at by the Volcker Commission. Does this mean that he also has legal fees being paid by the United Nations?

Spokesman: I don’t know the answers to those questions. I’d have to go back to the Office of Legal Affairs and ask what the basis for this is. I understand in the private sector, it’s commonly done. But I don’t know whether that was a factor in the Office of Legal Affairs’ advice to the Secretary-General; so, let me look into that for you.

Question: Can you tell us how much the total legal fees that Sevan is being asked to be reimbursed?

Spokesman: I cannot; as I said, the bills he gave us are now being reviewed by us, and I don’t think we have a total.

....

Question: Did Mr. Sevan call the Secretary-General about the fees? Who initiated the conversation about paying the legal fees?

Spokesman: I don’t know. I have to assume it was Mr. Sevan who asked for the reimbursement.

Question: Fred, I’m sure that the Iraqi Government will be concerned that more of the Iraqi oil-for-food money will be used in this case. Can you assure us that Iraqi oil-for-food money will not be used to pay Mr. Sevan’s legal fees?

Spokesman: As I just said, I don’t know where this money was to come from, if it were to be paid. So, let me try to find out and get back to you.

Question: I still don’t understand why you would pay Mr. Sevan’s legal fees and not Mr. Stephanides’ legal fees. The fact that he was the head of the programme, what difference would that make? And, for example, are you also planning to pay Ruud Lubbers’ legal fees for his defence against sexual molestation charges. Are you planning to pay for that French guy’s legal fees [inaudible]?

Spokesman: Excuse me, Mark. I said it was on an exceptional basis -- excuse me –- I said the decision was taken before the Volcker Commission laid specific charges against Mr. Sevan. So, let me find out the answers to the rest of your questions as best I can.

Question: Fred, given that the United Nations is pushing United Nations reform, is it timely for the Secretary-General to be wasting United Nations money on defending United Nations officials that are charged with ethical lapses and conflicts of interest? Is that not a waste of United Nations money at a time when the United Nations is pushing reform?

Spokesman: You’ve asked me about the rationale for the decision and I said I would try to find out what the legal advice of the Office of Legal Affairs to the Secretary-General was, why they advised him to do this. Yes?

Question: Can we specifically request that Kofi Annan, because it’s an exceptional decision with no precedent, publish the legal advice so that we can all see what the basis of this exceptional decision is? That’s one part of my question. The second part of my question is, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former United Nations Secretary-General, has been involved and interviewed in the investigation. Is there any similar consideration of paying any legal costs that Boutros Boutros-Ghali might incur?

Spokesman: No, I think when I said it’s exceptional, it’s exactly that. So, it starts and stops with Benon Sevan, and I will relay your first request to the people I answer to.

Question: Is there a [inaudible] reviewing those fees? Is the Secretariat considering not paying any of the fees that Mr. Sevan submitted paperwork for, prior to the Volcker report?

Spokesman: I can’t say that -– I cannot say that at this time.

Question: Might there be a decision to review -– is the Secretary-General considering whether to revoke that exceptional...?

Spokesman: I cannot answer that question. I don’t have a basis to answer that question.

Question: Well, the Sun article, it seems like there was the impression at least given, or maybe the straight answer given, that the United Nations wasn’t considering paying for Mr. Sevan’s fees, and now we’ve learned that they are considering. Can you explain why there is that difference? Where did the decision come from to drop paying the fees once Benon Sevan was cited in the Volcker report?

Spokesman: All of these decisions, or these two decisions, first to, in principle, to reimburse Mr. Sevan for his legal fees, using the language that I used initially, and the decision to no longer do so once charges were raised against him were both taken by the Secretary-General. And your other question was what?

Question: The other question was just trying to understand -- initially you denied, at least that’s the sense we got from the Sun article, that you denied that there was some sort of arrangement being made, but now we’re learning that there is some kind...

Spokesman: I don’t think we ever dealt with this question. I don’t think it ever came up in a briefing.

Question: Fred, seems [inaudible] this sum of $300,000 [inaudible]...correct?

Spokesman: That’s not a figure that I can confirm. They haven’t told me.

Question: Can you tell us how many United Nations staff employees that figure of $300,000 would pay for in a year as employment?

Spokesman: Well, first of all, I can’t confirm the $300,000 figure is correct.

Question: I’m just saying how many United Nations employees?

Spokesman: It’s still a hypothetical question.

Question: $300,000 –- how many United Nations staff members does that pay for in a year? One, two, three?

Spokesman: The pay scale at the United Nations goes from the lowest General Service member to the most senior Professional...

Question: It could be several, couldn’t it?

Spokesman: I’m not going to speculate, James. Richard?

Question: The decision was taken by the Secretary-General. Do you believe it would be fair criticism that it raises still questions about the Secretary-General’s judgement regarding conflict of interest, the perception of the image of the place, this story coming out one day after his big reform effort, can totally undercut the efforts made in that direction? He wanted an internal probe first on oil-for-food. The same legal office said on Ruud Lubbers that there wasn’t enough to go against him. Can you address the perception issue?

Spokesman: I think until we get from upstairs the rationale of the Office of Legal Affairs for advising the Secretary-General to do this, there’s no sense discussing perceptions.

Question: Fred, why do we not have that rationale today? I mean, this is the day the piece appeared in the newspaper. Why is it that you, as the United Nations Spokesman, haven’t brought us that rationale, are not able to explain the exceptional basis today?

Spokesman: Well, it appeared in the paper a few hours ago. That’s when we became aware of it. The Secretary-General himself is in Algiers, and I just didn’t get full guidance by 12.

Question: Can we also request –- if you are unable to publish the legal advice -- that we get the Under-Secretary-General down here to explain to us in his words why that decision was taken.

Spokesman: I will relay that request.

....

Question: Regarding Benon Sevan, we were talking of perception. It could be a perception that Kofi Annan is paying his legal fees as hush money to Benon Sevan, who was in an exceptional position as head of the programme. Can you explain to us why that perception might be incorrect?

Spokesman: I think you would have to explain why you would have that perception yourself.

Question: I am glad to explain it. Benon Sevan was in charge of the programme, and he knows where the bodies are buried, and the United Nations may not want him to speak about where the bodies are buried and, therefore, you would want to persuade him not to speak where the bodies are buried? It might lead to the payment of his legal costs so that he does not incur any further personal hardship and, therefore, he would stay quiet. That’s my perception. Now, why is that perception wrong?

Spokesman: From the very beginning, the Secretary-General took action to make sure that Benon Sevan cooperated fully with Mr. Volcker and his panel.

Question: [inaudible] as outlined in the Volcker report.

Spokesman: Well, the Volcker report has not yet issued its final determination on Mr. Sevan’s activities, and so we have to wait for the final report. But you will recall that the Secretary-General first issued an instruction to all members of the Secretariat to cooperate with Mr. Volcker. He then placed Mr. Sevan on a dollar-a-year contract to keep him in the status of a staff member, so that he would be obligated to follow the instructions of the Secretary-General directly as far as cooperating with Volcker. Whether he has fully cooperated with Volcker or not has to be Mr. Volcker’s assessment.

Question: When you say this is done on an exceptional basis, the United Nations is guaranteeing that no other person -– no other United Nations employee -- anywhere is having their legal fees paid for by the United Nations with regard to investigations into misconduct, whatever.

Spokesman: As far as I know. Again, making a system-wide sweep like this and a deep history search if this has ever been done before can’t be done in a couple of hours. But it is my understanding that this is exceptional.

Question: Has the Secretary-General retained a personal lawyer to advise him on the investigation? If so, does he categorically exclude seeking reversal [inaudible]?

Spokesman: I would have to ask the Secretary-General that question and get back to you.

Question: [inaudible] [regarding the salary of the Secretary-General]

Spokesman: That’s in the books. I don’t have the figure in my head. I mean, it’s a matter of record and... Richard?

Question: Did you say it’s all legal fees or were there other things Benon Sevan was looking to be reimbursed for –- copying of documents, cab trips, the trip to Cyprus?

Spokesman: I did not say. I did say he submitted a number of bills to us and that we are reviewing them.

Question: Does the United Nations have any power to make Benon Sevan make a reimbursement to the Organization himself on any funds that may have gone missing due to his fault?

Spokesman: The United Nations does and has in the past sought to recover funds that had been embezzled, and there are a number of ways that can be done. I don’t want to say that applies to Mr. Sevan because, until now, Mr. Volcker has not accused Mr. Sevan of anything criminal. So we are still waiting for the final report.

Question: [inaudible] if there are ... criminal [inaudible] of funds? [inaudible] Does the United Nations have any power to do that?

Spokesman: That’s a technical question. I would have to assume it’s a combination of United Nations sources and national authorities’ cooperation. Bank accounts and so on.

Question: Can you explain if there is any relationship between Benon Sevan and his lawyer, Mr. Lewis, and United Nations Legal Department?

Spokesman: First of all, I had no idea that Mr. Sevan’s lawyer’s name is Mr. Lewis. I don’t know who his lawyer is and, therefore, I cannot answer any question about any relationship between his lawyer and the Legal Department, but I would have to assume that there is none.

Question: Could you find out if there is a relationship?

Spokesman: Why would you speculate that there is?

Question: Well, perhaps there is. I am just wondering where Mr. Sevan is getting his legal advice from. If the United Nations is considering aid for it, maybe it is on the advice of the Legal Department for him to have this advice coming from this individual, or another one.

Spokesman: I doubt that very much, but I will ask the question for you.

Question: Would it be cheaper for the United Nations to provide Mr. Sevan with one the United Nations lawyers?

Spokesman: There is probably a legal reason for that. I will ask what it is.

Question: Is there some kind of procedure as to how much the United Nations is willing to pay per hour to this lawyer? Is there some system here, or is it basically “lawyer asks for any fee he wants in the United Nations pay” structure? How is it determined whether it’s a fair price or not?

Spokesman: I said reasonable legal fees as determined by the United Nations.

Question: And I’m just wondering how that is determined.

Spokesman: I can’t give you a dollar amount.

Question: Can you pledge to us that you’ll keep us updated in this room about any payments actually authorized to Mr. Sevan’s legal team?

Spokesman: I can ask my –-

Question: I mean this is taxpayer, money after all, we’re talking about.

Spokesman: Yes, I can ask the Secretary-General’s office if they would give me that information to give to you promptly and regularly.

Question: One, did Mr. Stephanides request payment? Two, just to reclarify. You’re saying nothing has been paid yet. There’s still a decision to be made on that, or this is a definite that certain fees before the Volcker report came out earlier will be paid, or would everything be hinging on what Volcker says about the Secretary-General next week?

Spokesman: I said that Mr. Sevan submitted bills. We have not paid anything yet. We are reviewing what he submitted to us. When we agreed to reimburse him, we did so before the first Volcker report. When that report came out and made specific charges against Mr. Sevan, we informed him at that point that we would not reimburse him for any legal fees that he incurred subsequent to the levelling of chargers against him.

I also said in response to a question by Nick, that I do not know whether we are reviewing our initial decision to reimburse him for the period leading up to the levelling of charges.

Question: And Mr. Stephanides -– has he asked?

Spokesman: To my knowledge, he has not asked. But again I believe that our policy decision was on an exceptional basis for Mr. Sevan as the head of the oil-for-food programme.

Question: You’re saying that it’s under review now, whether you’re going to reimburse him, but the decision was taken to reimburse certain fees.

Spokesman: Don’t twist –- does everyone understand what I said? That the agreement was to reimburse him. That once charges had been levelled, we said from that point forward we would no longer agree to reimburse you, and I do not know whether we are reconsidering the initial offer to reimburse him up to the time when the charges were levelled. I just don’t know that. That’s one of the things I’ll have to get back to you on.

Question: My question was, is there a legal basis, within the United Nations, to revoke that earlier decision to reimburse him for the earlier services that he was receiving?

Spokesman: We’ll have to ask the lawyers that. I don’t know.

Question: Was Mark Malloch Brown already on board when the decision was made? Do you know what day or week the decision was made to make this one-time exception?

Spokesman: I don’t think he was, but I’d have to review the dates.

Thank you very much.

[The Spokesman later announced that he would provide by the end of the day a written statement answering most of the questions put to him at the briefing.]

END QUOTE
\
END OF EXCERPT