Thread by @althecat

I listened to the UN Geneva Briefing from Friday. There was a video stream of today's @WHO Executive Board meeting it seems, which was the basis of the @Reuters report .

The video stream is here >> who.int/about/governan…

https://twitter.com/althecat/status/1485638996113960967

It took a bit of time to find it - Ethiopia's intervention comes 7:50 into the Second session today. Ambassador Kebebe (@kebede_zenebe) attempted to read a statement but was twice ruled out of order by the chair. who.int/about/governan…

The Chair of the @WHO'2 150th Executive Board Meeting did so on the basis of a decision made 15 minutes into the 1st session concerning the "Note Verbal" from the Govt of Ethiopia.

A transcript of this portion of the meeting introduction follows:

This decision was taken before the agenda was discussed.

"This is an extremely complicated matter, with political implications, and outside the agreed procedural framework of this cmtte...

.., accordingly, I am inclined to the view that this request should be set aside with respect to the board and "if appropriate be addressed by those concerned as they may deem appropriate."

While I am not an expert on @WHO Executive Board procedural conventions, excluding a matter addressed to the Board for discussion, of serious consequence, without reference to the board member raising the matter, outside of the Agenda approval process appears odd.

In addition the specific decision proposed by the chair, and accepted by the Executive Board, seem intrinsically out of order, as on its face it appoints @DrTedros to decide what disciplinary procedure he should take against himself. An abuse of natural justice.

Specifically the decision adopted by the chair is as follows:

"...this request (The "Note Verbal" from Ethiopia - complaint r.e. @DrTedros) should be set aside with respect to the board, and, if appropriate, be addressed by those concerned as they may deem appropriate."

The plain meaning of the wording of this implies that "those concerned" i.e. @DrTedros, should address the note as he, @DrTedros "deems appropriate."

To me this seems wholly inappropriate.

I think the Govt. of Ethiopia needs to instruct a lawyer to take the @WHO to court in Switzerland, if that is the Jurisdiction under which @WHO operates.

Ambassador @kebede_zenebe had clearly arranged to have an intervention in the first part of the meeting in which it was clear he had an opportunity to speak. And did so.

He was ruled out of order to do so by virtue of a decision made in the first 15 minutes of the meeting, outside of the "Agenda", an decision of the EB which was not in either of the two advertised agenda documents. >> apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f…

The rules of the hybrid meeting are set out in two documents referenced here:
> Opening of the session and adoption of the agenda > apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f…
&
> Decision-making and procedural issues at the
hybrid 150th session of the EB A practical guide > apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f…

The Govt. of Ethiopia could consider immediately appealing this unadvertised decision (not in the Agenda and probably engineered by @DrTedros himself or his secretariat to get himself off the hook) to attempt to circumvent an inquiry into his conduct.

If the EB Chair is unwilling to do raise the matter. Or rejects it being deliberated again during the meeting then further escalation either to the UNSG or the courts would to my mind be entirely appropriate.

The issue of @DrTedros being held to account for his prejudicial conduct towards his own people - acting outside the humanitarian principles of the UN (the evidence for which is both sound and comprehensive), is not something that should be let go of.

And it is not something that should be decided by a majority of a very large board. This is a professional disciplinary issue regarding the CEO and needs to be addressed within an appropriate formal process, one which he is not in a position to design for himself.

/ENDS

@Threadreaderapp unroll