Original summary of project as sent to UNHCHR in 2002

I would like to request your assistance for probable legal action in the following project, implemented in Huambo, Angola from June 1998 to January 2001 and for which I was the Project Director:

ANG 96/B01 – BL2101 ‘Community Production Centre in Huambo’ also known locally as ‘Microform’ and at UNDP and UNOPS as ‘The RUTEC Project’ under a variety of different project codes.

I would like to state the following:

1. The project was planned between 1996 and 1998 by the Economics Unit of UNDP Angola.
2. A South African company ‘RUTEC’, a specialist in Micro Enterprises, was selected as a subcontractor. There is no evidence that they had tendered for this contract as is required by UN Regulations or that a waiver for tender was acquired. There is no record of them supplying audited accounts of their financial viability before receiving the contract, also as is required by UN regulations. To date it is unclear how RUTEC became involved.
3. Various Project Documents (ANG96/003, ANG96/005 et.al.) was passed around to various donors for two years without success, probably because the RUTEC component of the project was considered too expensive.
4. RUTEC provided a very vague proposal and never altered it in two years of being requested to be more specific as to what it is that they can do.
5. In the beginning of 1998 UNDP instructed UNOPS (United Nations Office for Project Services) to sign a contract with RUTEC (Contract C-971-794). This was done by Dimitri Samaras, Director for Africa I of UNOPS, on 28 February 1998, apparently against his better judgement. The contract allowed for a 18-month pilot phase after a four-month set-up period. There is no correlation between the contract signed between RUTEC and UNOPS and any of the Project Documents. The contract contains no specific objectives for RUTEC to obtain in order to justify payment, apart from the supply of some equipment. The contract identifies UNDP as owner of the project.
6. In March 1998, Michel Balima, Deputy resident Representative – Projects, UNDP, informed UNOPS that the project will be financed through the Community Reconstruction Programme, a Ministry of Planning programme financed by a Trust Fund managed by UNDP. The Ministry of Planning has consistently claimed that they have not authorised this project, which they considered to be too expensive for what was to be achieved and too reliant on outside input instead of local initiatives.
7. At the end of May 1998, I was contracted as a consultant by RUTEC as Project Director. The only document I had to work from was the UNOPS-RUTEC contract. This left me at a bit of a loss as to what I was supposed to do. I thus made things up as I went along.
8. During 1998 UNDP made two transfers to UNOPS totalling U$D1 645 000.00 for this project.
9. Soon after starting the project it became apparent to me that RUTEC has no capacity to implement a project of this type in Angola. Efforts to discuss this with the UN came to nothing since both UNDP and UNOPS claimed that this was not their project but a project of UNOPS in the case of UNDP and vice versa. (Documentation between myself and RUTEC dating from September 1998 to July 2001 exist where they admit that they are not capable of managing this type of project.)
10. The project started operating at the end of January 1999.
11. In effect it meant that the project was managed by myself, with no support whatsoever, apart from the Provincial Government. In March 1999 the Provincial Governor, Paulo Kassoma, changed the name to ‘Microform’ and said that RUTEC will not be recognised unless they can start contributing towards the project.
12. Using only local resources the project achieved considerable success, at a time of war, and with very little funds. The Provincial Government requested on various occasions that the project should be reformulated after its pilot phase and that additional finance should be sought for continuation. UNDP promised that an evaluation would be done to achieve this. This evaluation never happened.
13. The initial pilot phase came to an end at the end of June 2000. No decision had been made regarding the future of the project and I was left with all the responsibility, lots of contradictory demands and instructions, and no authority to make any decisions. UNDP asked us and the Provincial Government to wait for the evaluation.
14. UNOPS was asked by the Angolan Government to leave the country and did so by the end of January 2000. This was partly as a consequence of the consistent failure of their projects in Angola.
15. UNOPS had paid RUTEC a total amount of U$D 1 505 000.00, up to the end of September 2000 for the supply of equipment, management costs and project escalation costs, in 19 instalments. Of this RUTEC had supplied equipment, according to a grossly inflated invoice of U$D 285 000.00 (three second hand computers @ U$D 8 000.00, a box of nuts and bolts @ U$D 1 900.00 and a football @ U$D 7 000.00, to name but a few discrepancies) and all running expenses, set up, construction, salaries, international travel, etc at U$D 227 000.00 paid in 18 instalments between June 1998 and June 2000. RUTEC had received U$D 250 000.00 as a licensing fee in spite of the fact that they had only supplied equipment that is within the public domain and their manuals are copies of the ILO manuals.
16. The expenditure of more than U$D 1 million cannot be justified in terms of benefits to the project.
17. The first two payments from UNOPS to RUTEC totalling about U$D 500 000.00 were authorised by the UNOPS Country Representative, Lawrence Dozcy. The remaining 17 payments were authorised by the UNDP Resident Representative, first Bernard Ntegye and then Zoraida Mesa. Two planned payments totalling U$D 87 261.00 were cancelled by UNOPS. All the project monthly reports (reports written by the staff in Huambo), various letters and numerous meetings informed UNDP that project funds are not reaching the project and requested that these payments be suspended until RUTEC can justify their contribution to the project. This had no effect. RUTEC never wrote any reports to UNOPS.
18. During the project UNOPS had made one one-day mission on 31 March 1999, UNDP two one-day missions on 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000 and RUTEC one one-day mission on 31 March 2000. The management problems of the project were discussed extensively during these visits but these entities never produced any mission reports or any meaningful follow up. UNDP claimed that these issues will be resolved during an evaluation promised first for May 2000 then June 2000. RUTEC refused to discuss any of the issues raised unless an extension of their contract can be confirmed. They were unable to supply any information on what they can offer to the project.
19. After July 2000 RUTEC claimed that they can no longer provide any funds to the project unless an extension to their contract can be arranged. Even though they had received a payment from UNOPS of U$D 57 126.00 up to the end of September 2000, I was obliged to pay U$D 6 800.00 from my own funds to cover staff salaries up to the end of July 2000. Additional project expenses of approximately U$D 10 000.00 were left unpaid due to lack of funds and are unpaid up to date. These debts are putting me under huge pressure as nobody is taking responsibility to pay it.
20. My own salary was in arrears by about 13 months but I was unable to get confirmation from RUTEC as to what has been paid and what not.
21. UNDP asked us to continue working pending an evaluation and mobilisation of additional funds.
22. In September 2000 I spent three weeks at UNDP Luanda preparing documentation for an evaluation. To date UNDP has not followed up on these documents. Michel Balima had left UNDP Angola at this stage and for the first time both myself and UNDP staff in general had access to the project files. This was the first time I had access to a Project Document.
23. On 10 October 2000 I received, through both UNDP and RUTEC, a copy of a letter by UNOPS, dated 01 October 2000, ordering the project to close down immediately. The letter referred me to UNDP, as owner of the project, for guidance as to the practical and logistical aspects of such a closure in accordance to UN procedures as laid down in the Local Property Survey Board document. On 11 October 2000 I wrote a letter to UNDP seeking this guidance, mentioning that according to the Provincial Government, projects of this type can only be closed down on authorisation by the Minister of Planning, after a tripartite evaluation to be initiated by UNDP. To date no response has been received to this letter.
24. On 22/23 October 2000 the UNDP Country Office evaluation team visited the project. Upon their return they apparently discussed the issues raised with the UNDP Resident Representative, Zoraida Mesa, who on 27 December 2000 wrote to James Curry, the Director of the UNDP Office of Audit and Performance Appraisal, New York, requesting an audit.
25. On 04 November 2000, Stanslaus Nkwain, the new Deputy Resident Representative – Projects, visited Huambo. Upon leaving at the end of that day he promised me a response to the issues raised within two weeks. No response had been received to date.
26. Throughout November 2000 to January 2001 I kept in touch with UNDP almost daily both by telephone and in writing, regarding clarity about the project without ever receiving any responses.
27. On 22 January 2001 I informed UNDP that if no response had been received by 31 January 2001 the project will be closed down.
28. On 31 January 2001 I unilaterally closed the project down against almost universal condemnation and a lot of ill feeling. Staff and myself had worked seven months without contracts or salaries based on vague but unfulfilled promises by UNDP that they will reformulate and refinance the project. Sale of some of the equipment paid a small amount of the salary arrears. The rest of the equipment was placed in storage.
29. As a consequence of closing down the project I was detained in my own house for two days by the provincial authorities before being asked to go to Luanda to sort out the project difficulties. I was given one week to do this.
30. On 11 February 2001 I spoke to Herbert Behrstock, the Officer in Charge of UNDP, Angola, who assured me that UNDP will assume responsibility for the project problems and solve them and that they will plan and implement a new project in Huambo.
31. From 01 March 2001 to 30 June 2001 I was contracted by UNDP (SSA 2001/036) with the following terms of reference: to prepare an evaluation of the project to justify an audit, to prepare a project document for a follow up project and to prepare an inventory of equipment currently available in Huambo.
32. Correspondence between UNOPS and UNDP shows that UNOPS has no idea about the project and that their explanations are of the nature of excuses.
33. At the end of April 2001 and at the end of June 2001 I received two payments from RUTEC to the amount of U$D 25 000.00 covering my salary arrears for part of the year 2000. To date I have not been able to get paid the outstanding amount on my salary.
34. A Logframe for a Project Document was distributed to all UNDP staff on 25 April 2001. To date nobody has provided any feedback. Documents were prepared for the auditor, Bereket Sletzion, who in June 2001 informed the audit office that he believes an audit to be necessary. No financial information could be obtained from RUTEC to justify the money that they had received in spite of numerous letters to them to provide this. Local staff in Huambo refused me access to any of the equipment until their salaries have been paid.
35. By 27 June 2001 I gave UNDP a draft Project Document, which was compiled by myself, at my own expense, in extensive collaboration with the Provincial Authorities and local NGO’s. They promised that we will meet within a few days to discuss this document. To date we have not yet met.
36. Throughout July and August 2001 I kept in touch daily with UNDP regarding the project. At the end of July 2001 it was decided to have a mission to Huambo. Although I requested on several occasions to have the Terms of Reference for this mission, this was never received, leaving us all in the dark as to what this mission was to achieve.
37. The UNDP Mission took place on 22/24 August 2001 headed by Teresa Felix, National Programme Officer. None of the salary arrears were paid but staff were promised that they can work on a new project and receive these arrears in small amounts over several months. When asked about the project document and when a new project will be implemented, she showed complete ignorance. The government were ordered to put all equipment in storage, in spite of their claims that they do not have any available and would like some project activities to continue. I was ordered (by UNDP) to sign documents in the name of RUTEC for which I had no mandate (and never had) to take responsibility, causing huge resentment when I refused to do so. In general her attitude was considered arrogant, aggressive and grossly incompetent. UNDP lost whatever little credibility they may ever had had during this visit. (Documents available)
38. Immediately after this mission, and apparently acting upon instructions from the Provincial Governor, the Directorate of Criminal Investigation took up the issue and called in all the staff, including myself, to make statements. The National state run newspaper published an article quoting a Ministry of Planning official saying that the central government will pursue this issue in search of an explanation.
39. In the beginning of September 2001 the local staff wrote a letter to UNDP stating that they are unhappy with the solutions offered by UNDP during the mission, principally since this would oblige them to work for UNDP. This they considered to be unacceptable. As a consequence of this letter UNDP started searching for practical mechanisms to pay the salary arrears.
40. At the same time I informed UNDP that I consider them to be incompetent and incapable of planning a project of any sort and that alternatives for a new project will be sought.
41. I discussed the project problems in detail with Stephen Kinloch, Assistant Resident Representative who promised to take this issue up with the new Resident Representative, Erick de Mul and wrote several letters to me promising that UNDP will seek a solution.
42. In September 2001 the possibilities for a new project, outside of UNDP, was discussed with the Provincial Government. It was agreed that, whilst they would consider alternatives, that I should remain in Luanda seeking donor support and NGO’s that may support it. By the beginning of November 2001 I was asked to return to Huambo to help prepare a project document for a project to be implemented through the Public Investment Programme, a government initiative. These documents were prepared and presented to the Minister of Planning by mid- December 2001. The project was authorised by the beginning of January 2002 and implemented at the end of the same month with a budget of U$D 850 000.00 for the first year. This was done entirely at my own initiative and expense with no input by UNDP whatsoever.
43. On 26 November 2001 I was informed by Stephen Kinloch that UNDP has agreed to pay the outstanding local staff salaries and that payment of my own salary and other expenses will be decided through an audit. He was unable to provide any dates, simply a note stating: ‘For reasons beyond my control I am no longer able to be in contact with you on behalf of UNDP. Consider this communication informal and unofficial.’
44. On 15 January 2002 I appeared in a radio interview where I explained some of the above details as well as the fact that for over a million Dollars that was spent by UNDP no results can be shown. Francisco de Almeida, on behalf of UNDP, responded the following day on radio. He claimed that misappropriation of a million dollars is news to UNDP and that I as Project Director would be responsible to provide an explanation, that UNDP, as an act of goodwill will pay all salary arrears, that an audit will be held during the first quarter of 2002 and that a new project will be implemented based on the Project Document prepared by myself.
45. On 28 January 2002 he appeared in Huambo to pay U$D 33 000.00 in salary arrears. During this visit he reiterated the claims made on radio and brought with him a letter signed by Erick de Mul stating that UNDP only planned and financed the project and as such are in no way responsible for the problems experienced by the project. These should be taken up with UNOPS and RUTEC. I have very serious problems with this sort of argument and will pursue an explanation from the UN system as to how it is possible for senior managers to make these sort of excuses. This line of argument has been tried by various dubious entities in history and has never been accepted by any legal body. That the UN, that is supposed to work to the highest moral standards, are making these sort of excuses, are cause for very serious concern to me.
46. Francisco de Almeida distributed a file containing documents in support of UNDP’s argument. For the argument that I am responsible to explain the whereabouts of the project funds, a copy of my CV is provided. For the argument that the government has in fact authorised the project, an unsigned document, generated by UNDP, asking a series of questions is provided. To me, and to the recipients of this file (I did not receive any copy of it), its content was considered tantamount to excuses of an extremely low professional level.
47. To date there has been no audit, nor any prospect of an audit.
48. In March 2002 ‘Mãos Livres’ (Free Hands) an Angolan Human Rights organisation, took up the issue and wrote to the Criminal Investigation Section of the police about it. On 30 April 2002 the state prosecutor replied that the issue has been handed over to his office and that all future correspondence need to be directed to him. Since then they have not been able to provide any concrete information. The legal system in Angola is very ponderous to say the least.
49. In the beginning of July 2002 the lawyers from Mãos Livres spoke to Francisco de Almeida at UNDP who promised to provide them with all the relevant documentation for an argument that UNDP is innocent of any wrongdoing. When they had not received the documentation after two weeks of trying they assumed that these would not be forthcoming. Francisco de Almeida also claimed that an audit will be held in the last quarter of 2002.
50. Since the beginning of July 2002 the lawyers from Mãos Livres also had been trying to meet with Erick de Mul, the UNDP Representative. These meetings have been consistently postponed or alternatively they have been left waiting all day at UNDP without being attended to. Meetings arranged with Erick de Mul between August 2002 and October 2002 was not in a single instance honoured.
51. On 23 July 2002 I was asked to attend a meeting with an investigative team that are investigating various UNDP projects, including this one. This mission, with one International Consultant and three Angolans was apparently requested by the Ministry of Planning and jointly financed by UNDP and the government. Although they asked very penetrating and critical questions their priorities seem to lie more with the general nature of UNDP assistance than with my particular difficulties.
52. I have an excellent relationship with the Angolan government. Several government officials have warned me to be careful and not to let anybody at UNDP know where I live. I am not sure how serious I should take this advice.
53. In October 2002 Francisco de Almeida claimed that an audit will be held early in 2003.
54. A national weekly paper AGORA published two articles (28 September 2002 and 06 December 2002) raising the issue of the unexplained funds and asking UNDP for an explanation, considering the fact that UNDP had consistently refused to speak to any of their journalists. Francisco de Almeida, apparently highly indignant, gave them a series of documents protesting UNDP’s innocence. The journalists considered these documents irrelevant as a response to their questions. Once again UNDP claimed that I am the person responsible to provide answers and once again my CV is offered as proof.
55. In October 2002 and November 2002 I was asked to the National Directorate for Criminal Investigation on three occasions to provide information on a criminal investigation regarding this project.
56. In the beginning of December 2002 I was contacted by a senior official of the Ministry of Justice, Dr Sitende, and met with him on 07 January 2003. He explained to me that he would like to pursue avenues to oblige Erick de Mul to speak to me and resolve this issue in a friendly manner. Should Erick de Mul not respond to this approach, the issue (regarding their treatment of me) will then be solved through the courts.
For over three years my life has been dominated by trying to find solutions to caused by gross negligence and incompetence of others, principally UNDP. Whenever they do communicate with me it is invariably to demand that I spend my time and at my own expense generate documents or follow certain procedures that would allow them to make certain decisions, which they then never do. I have worked with more than eight UNDP staff members, all of whom initially make promises of a solution and then do nothing. I have been lied to, threatened and insulted by UNDP staff (some of this I have in writing). I have been without an income for more than two years and have changed from being financially independent to currently being unable to feed my family. I have no legal documents to be in Angola but cannot leave because I have no money.
In spite of their denials I hold UNDP accountable for the difficulties I am experiencing. This is a direct result of poor planning and financial control on their part initially, followed by making promises that they were unable to fulfil. I have lost confidence that UNDP has either the will or capacity to solve these issues on their own account. If they cannot even organise an audit in a reasonable time it is unlikely that they will have the capacity to conduct an audit.

I believe that the only option open to me is legal action, for which I am seeking guidance on how to proceed. I am also sending regular letters to the press hoping to turn this into the scandal that it should be.

This is the shortest summary am able to produce, for what is essentially a very complex issue. Everything stated above are supported by documentation and declarations by people involved. These documents are available to anybody interested.