05 June

An employee

An employee who works as an accountant in one of the government departments has submitted a complaint to the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission, which includes allegations of corruption committed by the director of the department. When the director Knew about the employee’s complaint, he imposed two kinds of punishments on him; a warning notification, as well as dismissal from work.

Accordingly, the employee has filed a request for protection from the arbitrary measures he was subjected to:

Immediately, the staff of the Witness and Informants Protection Unit took the necessary actions to collect all required information, evidence, documents, and hearing witnesses, to verify, among other things:
1. The validity of the information provided by the employee.
2. The complaint submitted by employee and the extent to which the alleged acts of corruption have been proved.
3. Ensure that there is a relationship between the complaint and the punishment of warning and dismissal from work.

As a result, the Unit found that there is a causal relationship between the complaint received by the Integrity and Anti- Corruption Commission, and the punishment that have been imposed on the applicant, namely, the punishment of warning and the punishment of dismissal from work. As a result, the unit proved that the director of the department has committed an offense of abusing a whistleblower, which is in violation of article 27 of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law No. 13 of 2013 and the Whistleblowers Protection regulation No. 2014.

Confirming the act of abuse of the applicant right of protection (the whistleblower), the unit brought in the director of the department (the perpetrator of the offense), and made him aware of the offense of insulting a whistleblower, in contravention of the provisions of the law of the Commission, and the protection of whistleblowers and witnesses, and was therefore, put under two options, either to return the employee to work, with all his rights, or to refer him (the director) to the Attorney General to take the required legal actions against him.

As a result, the director returned the employee to work with all his rights, and also revoked the warning notification he had taken against him.

Integrlty & Antl-corruption CommissionKnowledge Portal