Yesterday the influential website ‘Third Sector’ carried a news item about the resignation of Oxfam Trustee, Dr Balwant Singh, in which they revealed that the Charity Commission had now met with him to discuss his serious concerns about governance at the charity.
In his resignation letter Balwant states that he felt ‘morally obliged’ to tender his resignation stating: ‘I do so while calling for the resignation of the Board as currently constituted, and for the opening of an independent statutory investigation by the Charity Commission into governance failures at Oxfam Great Britain’.
He explains: ‘Over recent months, I have witnessed repeated governance failures, procedural irregularities and a persistent unwillingness by the Board to acknowledge mistakes, accept accountability, or subject itself to truly independent scrutiny. These failures are not isolated incidents. They reflect systemic weaknesses in Board oversight, culture and decision-making that, in my view, now render the Board’s position untenable.’
In regard to the disgraceful treatment of the former CEO, he states: ‘the current crises at Oxfam Great Britain did not originate with the former Chief Executive Officer, Dr Halima Begum. On the contrary, they reflect long-standing governance failures that not only pre-date her appointment but required considerable work on her part to address’.
With regards the smear campaign in the press orchestrated by Oxfam, he described Halima as a ‘whistleblower’ rather than the cause of Oxfam’s problems and identifies how the truth was distorted:
‘the former CEO raised concerns through grievance and whistleblowing channels that extended well beyond issues of personal treatment. These included serious matters of safeguarding compliance, financial oversight, international governance and Board accountability.
In this context, the Board allowed it to be publicly understood that there were safeguarding-related concerns associated with the former CEO’s leadership, without clarifying that these did not relate to any failure to act on safeguarding, but rather to her direct engagement and scrutiny in this area.’
He goes on to criticise the process of the enforced resignation of Halima as being: ‘in breach of the most basic principles of natural justice’.
Perhaps the most worrying revelation in Dr Singh’s resignation letter, is that he describes how he personally has been threatened with legal action by Oxfam, saying he was: ‘contacted by the Board’s public relations adviser, who suggested that I disavow a truthful statement I had made to the media and deny authorship of it. I was further informed, through Board channels, of potential legal action being contemplated in relation to my truthful and honestly-made statement.’
It appears that the cabal that is currently running Oxfam has now been reduced not only to misleading the press, but threatening legal action against its own trustees should they speak the truth. It is no wonder that other trustees are silent.
In response to Oxfam’s decision to appoint an ‘independent’ investigation into its own conduct, Dr Singh says this:
‘A rushed resolution was circulated to appoint two trustees to oversee a further fact-finding exercise about recent events described in this letter. Both individuals had been directly involved in the events and decisions under scrutiny. I objected to their appointment on clear conflict-of-interest grounds.
Before trustees were informed of the outcome of the resolution, a press statement announcing it was issued to the media. That occurred without my agreement, allegedly under the principle of collective responsibility. This sequence of events illustrates a serious failure of governance process, including the concentration of decision-making power among a small group of predominantly long-serving trustees and the use of collective responsibility to limit challenge rather than ensure accountability.’
We understand that Rebecca Tuck KC is to undertake the ‘investigation’ but it is to be supervised, and she will report to, two trustees, Andrew Hind and Martha McKenzie who made the very decisions that are supposedly under scrutiny. This appears to be a further example of the ‘inappropriate concentration of decision-making power among a small group’ of trustees that Balwant has described.
This cannot go on, it is a waste of charitable money, and a feeble attempt to provide an alternative to proper, independent, scrutiny. Surely now the Charity Commission must act, and the existing trustees must go.
You can read Dr Singh’s full resignation letter here.
Thank you,
John Page