Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
from Mr Samer Muscati
[*** Asterisks denote part of text removed
by agreement of the Committee]
ALLEGATIONS OF
ABUSE BY
KBR MANAGERS IN
BRITISH EMBASSY
BAGHDAD
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter
from David Miliband concerning the allegations of abuse by KBR
managers in the British Embassy Baghdad.
I have a number of comments on his letter, as
follows:
It is fair to say that Embassy senior management
acted immediately when they became aware of the allegations. The
Deputy Head of Mission and a UK civilian police officer did interview
those complainants who had had the courage to come forward. These
were:
— *** (also known as ***), the original
complainant, who was dismissed by KBR Management on the grounds
of competence, but after she refused to engage in performing sexual
favours.
— Hassan, a locally employed KBR staff
member who supported ***'s allegations and made additional allegations
of widespread sexual harassment and bullying by KBR management.
— Nasser, another locally employed
KBR staff member who corroborated Hassan's statement and also
made additional allegations.
Although I agree that the Embassy initially
investigated the matter in a professional manner that was conducted
in good faith, I submit that the problems arose after KBR management
were informed of the allegations and allowed to take over the
investigation. My contention is that the KBR investigation was
fundamentally flawed and failed to follow even the basic requirements
as stipulated by British law or policy, such as the Equal Opportunities
Commission guidance for managers on sexual harassment. (Sexual
Harassment: Managers questions answered. Detailed guidance from
the Equal Opportunities Commission March 2006 ISBN 1 84206 175
5)
The flaws in this investigation make it essential,
in the interests of natural justice, that an independent investigation
takes place into these serious allegations.
The investigation was flawed for a number of
reasons:
— Specifically, although KBR suspended
three expatriate members of the KBR management team accused of
misconduct, these three remained in the Embassy for a number of
days after they were suspended, awaiting a flight from Baghdad.
During this period they were allowed free access to the KBR local
Iraqi staff and were therefore able to submit them to threats
and intimidation. I was present at the Embassy during that period
and either observed or was told that a number of unacceptable
incidents occurred including:
(a) Hassan was interrogated and threatened by
two of those expatriate KBR managers supposedly suspended.
(b) Before leaving the Embassy, the KBR managers
told local staff that they had been suspended, but, that they
would be returning soon and that anyone who spoke out would be
punished.
(c) Local staff were told by KBR staff that if
they spoke out, there was a good chance that the Embassy would
terminate KBR's contract, resulting in their collective dismissal.
(d) One of the KBR managers was overheard encouraging
at least one local staff member to falsely accuse Hassan and Nasser
of threatening them with violence.
A hand-written paper was circulated among local
staff stating that it was the religious duty of local staff not
to speak out during the investigation. It quoted a Koranic verse
condemning those who cause strife in the community.
Mr Miliband's letter states that: "(KBR)
also despatched its UK-based FCO project manager and its international
lead officer for HR issues to Kuwait and Baghdad to conduct interviews
with those involved in the case".
His letter fails to point out that none of the
three complainants, ***, Hassan or Nasser, were interviewed by
the KBR investigatory team. The very fact that the investigators
were apparently given conflicting information by the KBR local
staff they interviewed made it essential for them to hold additional
meetings with these three original complainants.
The Equal Opportunities Commission guidance
for managers on sexual harassment notes:
"When is it necessary to hold additional
meetings?
During the course of the investigation, it may
become evident that further investigation or external advice is
needed. It may be you have been given conflicting information
that you need to clarify with one or more persons".
This was certainly the case during the KBR investigation.
The KBR investigators also failed to interview myself, despite
the fact that I had been one of those who raised the matter in
the first place after *** had been dismissed.
I would also point out that after *** had been
dismissed and complained about sexual harassment, the local staff
were gathered by KBR management on 4th June 2007 and threatened
collectively against speaking to British Embassy staff regarding
these issues. The sole purpose of the meeting was apparently to
intimidate local staff. KBR management informed them that (1)
they had discovered complaints were being made to the Embassy;
(2) the Embassy did not have control over KBR's internal operations;
and (3) if these complaints continued, there could be ramifications
for local staff.
Mr Miliband states in his letter that the KBR
interviews "took place over the period 13-20 June, using
independent interpreters were necessary". His letter fails
to point out that the interviews were only conducted over a two-day
period. It is also my understanding that the interpreter used
was not "independent" as he was a local FCO employee,
who worked at the Embassy, ate at the canteen and would have been
known to all the local KBR staff.
These matters alone make Mr Miliband's statement
that "the KBR investigation was considered by (Embassy senior
management) to have been properly conducted and thorough"
somewhat surprising. I am aware that one of my former senior colleagues
working in the British Embassy was sufficiently concerned about
the flaws in the investigation and subsequent KBR report and its
conclusions that he wrote a long and detailed memorandum to the
Deputy Head of Mission in August 2007 requesting an independent
investigation.
Mr Miliband notes that "KBR's final report
into the case concluded that there was no evidence to support
the claims of serious sexual harassment, but that some managers
had displayed certain inappropriate behaviour in the workplace—falling
short of misconduct—which required further strengthening
of company guidance".
No KBR expatriate staff was disciplined as a
result of the investigation but both Hassan and Nasser, who had
had the courage to come forward in an atmosphere of intimidation,
were dismissed. Mr Miliband notes that "it is my understanding
that the staff concerned did not lose their jobs for making or
supporting the allegations, and that the principal complainant
had already been dismissed for disciplinary reasons before she
made the allegations."
It is my understanding that Nasser and Hassan's
dismissal was directly connected to the investigation. Both of
them were initially suspended while KBR conducted the investigation
and dismissed at its conclusion. ***, Nasser and Hassan were not
given an opportunity to appeal against the decision in conflict
with UK Codes of Practice relating to employment and disciplinary
matters. None of them were given letters outlining the reasons
for their dismissal, again, contrary to UK Codes of Practice.
I would also comment on Mr Miliband's statement
that "the principal complainant had already been dismissed
for disciplinary reasons before she made the allegations".
This is presumably a reference to ***. I fail to see the relevance
of this comment.
It is important to recognise the cultural context
in which these events took place. In Islamic culture it is extraordinarily
difficult for a woman to talk about matters such as sexual harassment
and intimidation. *** was initially reluctant to tell her story
but did so only after my colleagues and I encouraged her at the
behest of the Deputy Ambassador. ***, Hassan and Nasser had nothing
to gain and everything to lose by coming forward. They have gained
nothing, *** has risked being shunned and ostracised. Hassan and
Nasser lost their livelihood. They have not expected or received
any compensation.
I would like to conclude by requesting again
that the Foreign Affairs Committee conducts a thorough and independent
investigation into this case. The KBR investigation was fundamentally
flawed. Mr. Miliband's letter notes "All local staff, including
those employed by contractors, were spoken to in late 2007 by
the Senior Management Officer who told them that, should any of
them have any concerns about inappropriate behaviour, these should
be reported to either himself or the Deputy Head of Mission. They
were assured that any such report would be dealt with promptly
and in strict confidence".
While local Iraqi staff may have indeed been
recently told this, those words must ring hollow to their ears
after having seen first-hand the consequences of what happens
when they voice their concerns about inappropriate behaviour.
It is evident that their concerns are not dealt with properly
or effectively. Instead, local Iraqi staff are dismissed and the
British staff manage to retain their jobs. Further, it is my understanding
that the local guidance on FCO's dignity at work policy, attached
to Mr Miliband's letter, was only distributed to staff after The
Times published their story in early May 2008 on this sad
and shameful matter.
Thank you for your continued interest in this
case and I look forward to receiving your response.
11 June 2008
| 
