IGAD's accountability must be judged on facts, not anonymous allegations

IGAD Executive Secretary Workneh Gebeyehu. [File, Standard]

Anonymous allegations can damage reputations without meeting the basic standard of evidence. They eliminate the burden of proof and compel the accused to answer charges they cannot fully identify. The Standard Newspaper’s report on June 23, 2026 exemplifies this: it makes grave assertions against the IGAD Secretariat – financial mismanagement, procurement irregularities, staff intimidation, and governance failure – without identifying projects, transactions, or evidence to substantiate these claims.

During my service on the Senior Management Team, governance, finance, and institutional performance have been discussed openly and critically. This response reflects my personal experience as Director of the IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) and a member of the IGAD Senior Management Team, rather than organisational advocacy.

It is also important to recognise IGAD's governance framework. As an intergovernmental organisation, major strategic, political, and financial decisions are taken collectively by Member States through the Summit of Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers, and the Committee of Ambassadors — a governance architecture the report ignores entirely. While Summits and Council meetings have lately been delayed by regional political realities, the Committee of Ambassadors has consistently provided institutional oversight.

An allegation is not a finding

The report repeatedly relies on qualifying language such as "allegedly," "reportedly," and "appears," reflecting admissions of an inability to substantiate the assertions being made. More importantly, it identifies no specific project, financial transaction, procurement process, audit finding, contract, responsible official, or documented conflict of interest. Allegations concerning donor funds, procurement, staff intimidation, and headquarters construction are presented without dates, names, or supporting documentation. An allegation untethered from specific projects, persons, dates, or documents is not genuine whistleblowing – it is performative cynicism that risks eroding the institutional trust upon which IGAD's shared endeavours depend. Serious allegations require specificity. Genuine accountability depends on verifiable facts that permit objective investigation.

What the report does not mention: The external audit

IGAD operates under established accountability mechanisms, including independent annual external and internal audits whose findings are available to Member States and other stakeholders. The findings and recommendations of the audits are assessed and endorsed by the Committee of Ambassadors. Indeed, an institution that submits to external audit is an institution that has nothing to hide from those it serves. However, the report ignores this oversight framework while simultaneously calling the Executive Secretary to step aside pending an independent investigation. If the author believes existing audit mechanisms are inadequate, that argument should have been clearly stated and supported with evidence. It was not.

On donor funds: A direct attestation

As Director of ICPAC, I hold direct operational responsibility for multiple donor-funded programmes. Throughout my tenure, I have never received instructions to redirect donor resources outside approved agreements or fiduciary procedures. The report also alleges that virtual meetings were promoted to redirect travel budgets. This is incorrect. I do not personally favour the majority of meetings being held virtually and has said so openly to the Executive Secretary – without adverse consequence. My experience therefore contradicts claims that legitimate disagreement is discouraged.

Whether virtual meetings are the best management approach is open to debate. However, donor resources remain governed by financing agreements, approved budgets, and fiduciary controls that cannot be altered through management preference. Likewise, allegations of procurement irregularities remain unverified without identifiable contracts, officials, or audit findings demonstrating specific breaches.

Financial pressures re real – and openly acknowledged

IGAD faces genuine financial pressures, including salary constraints, which have been openly acknowledged rather than concealed. Like most regional economic communities, IGAD depends on Member State contributions and development partner support, and delayed contributions have placed sustained operational pressure. The Secretariat's mandate has also expanded substantially across humanitarian, climate, and peace and security demands. Attributing financial challenges solely to management decisions is both incomplete and unfair.

The December 2025 meeting: What actually happened

The report portrays an organisation that suppresses criticism. My experience differs substantially. For instance, the December 2025 Senior Management Meeting in Djibouti was frank and, at times, uncomfortable. Institutional failures were named directly. The Executive Secretary solicited criticism, and three sub-committees were established – examining political, financial, and institutional challenges – mandated to surface root causes and propose bold reforms. Participation in these committees was voluntary, with members selecting the groups where they could contribute most effectively. An institution that suppresses dissent does not create standing committees mandated to identify its own failures.

The team tasked with assessing the Organisation’s financial challenges presented its findings to the Senior Management Team in January and February 2026. Following extensive discussion, the recommendations were approved. As part of this, the The Deputy Executive Secretary and Director of Administration and Finance subsequently visited Nairobi in June 2026 to engage staff directly – the conduct of leadership managing challenges transparently.

Similarly, the team on political challenges identified regular convening of the Summit and Council as a priority. However, the Secretariat cannot unilaterally convene those bodies; scheduling requires Member State agreement and sensitivity to competing regional political realities. However, the Committee of Ambassadors has continued to meet regularly, including in December 2025.

The channel that was bypassed

IGAD maintains a formal Whistleblower Policy providing a legally protected mechanism for reporting alleged misconduct – safely, confidentially, and with due process. Bypassing it, in favour of anonymous media disclosure, does not strengthen accountability. It undermines the very mechanism the anonymous author claims to defend. The whistle-blower had access to this channel and chose not to use it – possibly because the internal procedure requires the specificity these allegations conspicuously lack.

What accountability actually requires

The IGAD Secretariat welcomes scrutiny and operates under oversight by its Member States’ established governance structures, financial regulations, and independent external audit. Development partners place considerable confidence in these fiduciary systems, and protecting that confidence requires allegations to be examined through credible institutional processes supported by evidence.

The anonymous report is, perhaps, seeking to undermine the institution without providing the factual foundation necessary for meaningful investigation. The reforms already underway within IGAD should be assessed through verified processes, formal audit, and engagement with Member States – not anonymous assertions unsupported by evidence.

That is not accountability. It is its opposite.

The views expressed are personal and based on direct institutional experience.

- Abdi M Fidar (PhD, PhD) is the Director, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) and Senior Management Team Member, IGAD Secretariat