United Nations Independent Systemwide Evaluation Mechanism

Government Officials and heads of some Academic Institutions In Africa conspire with UN officials to Steal donor funds meant for the poor and evade accountability responsibilities. Out of the political goodwill of donor countries, my continent Africa receives the highest percentage of multilateral development donor funding support from the UN System to improve the wellbeing of all individuals especially those with the greatest need. However, some Government Officials including some leaders in academic institutions in Africa conspire to steal UN donor funds meant for the poor. In an attempt to evade accountability, heads of UN agencies, for example, give money to leaders of government entities and academic institutions through money laundering schemes such as supporting conferences, workshops and symposia including funding foreign conferences and trips for government officials in African countries. In return, government officials and head of academic institutions for example are gullibly neutralized into accepting to obstruct UNISWEM's attempts to conduct independent evaluation activities in UN African program countries. One of our evaluation verification methodological tactics, for example, is to visit implementation sites of UN operational activities for development which requires the cooperation of both government and UN implementing entities. We had a case in Uganda, recently, where after agreeing on the terms of reference for systemwide evaluation of operational activities following a high level public national stakeholder dialogue which recommended to conduct a joint independent systemwide evaluation of operational activities for development of the UN System across the country, the office of the UN Resident Coordinator in Uganda informed us that they have received instructions from above (meaning from high high powers) not to provide information about implementation sites of operational activities for development of UN agencies in Uganda. However, the UN Resident Coordinator in Uganda who has now been transferred could not provide any written evidence of such instructions when we requested for it. It is possible the office of the UN Resident Coordinator may have lied about receiving such instructions. I know, the UN Secretary General, the appointing authority of all UN Resident Coordinators could not issue such an instruction neither would the President of Uganda who was supportive of the national dialogue do so. My opinion is that UN agencies should fund activities based only on the UN Cooperation framework in host countries except for emergency humanitarian interventions and, that since UN Resident Country Coordinators born in Africa know the gullibility of African leaders and can easily conspire with them to steal donor funds meant for the poor and evade accountability, they should mostly be deployed in non-African countries.

UN Agencies Must Not Give Money to Constitutionally-mandated Accountability oversight and Ethical enforcement State Entities in UN Program Countries. Funding of Constitutionally mandated independent accountability and ethical enforcement State Entities must solely be the Responsibily of Governments. UN agencies such as UNDP, UNFPA collaborate with government entities in member States that report to executive arm of the State to implement various development interventions in the public and best interests of citizens, especially, those individuals with the greatest need. Constitutionally-mandated independent accountability and ethical enforcement entities in member States such as the Public Protector and the Public Service Commission in the case of South Africa and the Inspectorate of Government in the case of Uganda that report directly to the oversight arm of the State-National Parliament/Assembly (Not the Executive Arm of the state) can not solicit or accept funding support from UN Agencies such as UNDP, UNFPA to run their activities because doing so would be legally interpretated as capture or conflict of interest since these UN Agencies are implementing entities of the UN System and collaboratively work with various implementing entities of Government under the auspices of the executive arm of the State. Such capture or conflict of interest by extension can neutralize the independence of state accountability and ethical enforcement entities from acting decisively in preventing collaborative malfeasance between implementing UN agencies and entities of Government in UN Program Countries which can also serve as avenues for money laundering between UN Agencies and implementing entities of Government in UN Program Countries.

One of UNISWEM's cardinal principles and indeed the principles of the evaluation discipline is to speak truth to power on the basis of evidence for accountability requirements. UN Staff and Experts In UN Program Countries are Subject to Public Accountability requirements and Responsibilies like any other public servant regardless of their seniority. UN Generally Resolution 62/63 on Criminal Accountability of UN Staff and Experts In UN program Countries empowers members countries to apply relevant laws in their countries to hold UN Staff and Experts, individually, accountable should they be found to have been involved in wrongdoing. Boldly, while the UN can exercise some supranational powers, it is not a government of governments neither is it a supra-state. UN agencies in collaboration/partnership with government entities implement various interventions in the public and best interests of citizens, especially, those individuals with the greatest need. The same way we hold our public servants in governments individually accountable, similarly, host governments are empowered to hold UN Staff and Experts accountable in terms of UN General Assembly Resolution 62/63 On Criminal Accountability of UN Staff and Experts. Please check our website for details especially about our history(reason why we exist), methodology and the unique contribution we make to improve the wellbeing of all citizens, especially, those with the greatest need in developing countries at: uniswem.org

#UNISWEM promotes good governance traditions: Strengthened public accountability, transparency, and effective social development inquiry. Human beings are the subjects of development. Contextually, uniswem.org: reconceptualizes development as a human rights issue where the process of designing a country’s development interventions and the enjoyment of the outcomes of the process of the implementation of development interventions must be claimed by the people of a country for the benefit of all individuals, especially, those with the greatest need. UNISWEM’s reconceptualization of development as a human rights issue is based on the preamble of the United Nations Charter which reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights, dignity, and worth of the human person. Within the context of development, UNISWEM's development evaluation approach is based on the vision of improving the well-being of humanity, idealized in the context of solving the problems society faces, and, driven by the quest to promote good governance traditions all of which seek to propagate the understanding that the exercise of authority delegated to public office duty bearers must be for the common good of all citizens, especially, those with the greatest need. This public accountability responsibility encompasses the requirement that public duty bearers must respect the rights of citizens as both a voice for external public accountability and as a measure for strengthening transparency, and effective social inquiry and includes the preparedness of public duty bearers to be held accountable by citizens should they abuse the authority of public office.

Respecting the rights of citizens as a voice for external accountability can be an effective tool to hold governments and UN entities accountable. Governments and UN entities as duty bearers are expected to implement development interventions for the common good of all citizens, especially, those with the greatest need. This expectation also encompasses the need to respect the rights of citizens as a voice for external accountability and the preparedness of governments in UN Program countries to be held accountable through the country’s citizens as a measure for strengthening accountability, transparency, and citizens' participatory oversight.   

Citizens MUST Safeguard Donor Funding support for the most vulnerable.

Contrary to a dominant belief in most developing countries, especially, in my Africa, Agencies of the UN system are not (open-ended)donor outfits of the UN system. Donor countries provide funding support to agencies of the UN Development system to implement operational activities for development to improve the well-being of those with the greatest need in host countries. To strengthen accountability and transparency, agencies of the United Nations System sign a development delivery performance agreement known as the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF) with the host country specifying priority national development needs to be supported by the UN system. So, it is the core responsibility of host countries to lead in prioritizing their national development needs for possible support through various agencies of the UN system.

Coherence evaluation criterion in systemwide evaluation of operational activities for development of the UN System within the context of systems thinking assists in identifying duplicate, misaligned and incompatible development interventions with concomitant double budgetary funding support, thus, helping governments and entities of the UN System to redirect budgetary funding support from, for example, duplicate interventions to other priority development needs in program countries.