Yesterday the Observer ran another story on the crisis at Oxfam.

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/oxfam-board-knew-ceo-could-make-legal-claim-if-ousted

The story reports that:  'Before the decision to sack Begum was made, trustees at Oxfam who ousted her discussed the possibility that they could face a substantial legal claim.'

Well, that didn’t really require Shirlock Homes did it: sacking someone on the basis of allegations you have never put to them or provided them with an opportunity to refute! It appears then that it was explicitly made plain to the trustees that their actions would put the Charity at significant financial risk. 

The Observer story also quoted from a leaked Oxfam document that warned ‘the court of public opinion may be in Halima’s favour’. Perhaps this explains why Oxfam by-passed its own press office and brought in a public relations consultant who initiated the unprecedented attack on Halima in the press. In any case, it appears that the trustees were informed that they were also putting the charity at substantial reputational risk. This is indicative of the very governance issues that we have asked the Charity Commission to investigate.

The Observer article has clearly seen Oxfam’s relevant board minutes, it would appear their initial concern was the breakdown in the working relationship between Halima and Charles Gurassa, who stood down, from the role of Chair and as a trustee AFTER Halima reportedly raised a grievance against him on the grounds of racism, sexism and bullying (allegations which he no doubt would seek to contest, if Oxfam were ever to investigate them, which it appears they have not done).

The Observer also reports that a trustee was asked to contact Halima informally to discuss a confidential settlement involving a six-figure sum in compensation. However, according to the Observer this was: ‘incompatible with any grievance claims’. In other words, it was conditional on her dropping her concerns about Charles Gurassa. The timeline appears to be: 

·      Halima raises concerns about Charles Gurassa, the Chair of the board.

·      She is offered a confidential ‘severance package’ on condition that she does not formalise the grievance. 

·      She rejects this offer and issues a formal grievance. 

·      The board then initiate a process which sees an ‘independent investigation’ (overseen by the board) that does not interview her and a decision is made to terminate her contract, without ever putting the allegations to her or giving her the opportunity to refute them. 

·      In an unprecedented move, Oxfam then briefs the press on the untested allegations against Halima resulting in potentially ‘career ending’ headlines. 

According to the Observer: ‘Oxfam has said it had confidence in the integrity of the processes involved in Begum’s departure.’ If that is the case, they are in denial. They were told in advance of the financial and reputational risks but went ahead anyway. This is evidence of serious governance failings.

Oxfam has now responded to public pressure (some of it generated by this petition) by declaring that it will initiate another ‘independent investigation’, once again overseen by the board, into its own actions that is has already declared it has confidence in. No one can credibly investigate complaints against themselves. 

This is not satisfactory, only a formal genuinely independent investigation, by the Charity Commission, will restore public confidence in this great and important charity. 

If you have already signed the petition, please share your views on whether you are satisfied with the Oxfam overseen review of their actions, or whether you still want to see a fully independent investigation? https://forms.gle/Se5EdKydeHoxTbsSA

Please also encourage your networks to continue to sign the petition. https://www.change.org/Oxfam_Shame

Many thanks,

John