ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP .com
ShellNews.net: Email to Jyoti Munsiff from a Shell Whistleblower: ": "I also believe that it is fair to make readers of this communication aware that apart from the High Court Restraining Order, I am also constrained in my comments by a threat of imprisonment.": Thu 02 Feb 2006 02:57 AM EST
EMAIL FROM SHELL RESERVES WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG TO SHELL'S CHIEF ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER
Jyoti Munsiff SCO
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Tel: +44 020 7934 3080 Fax: +44 20 7934 5140 Mobile: +44 7768 993 600
Congratulations on your appointment as Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
As you know I am being sued by eight companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group for alleged defamation. The relevant Shell companies have obtained a restraining order which prevents me for speaking the TRUTH in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. My rights to freedom of expression have in fact been restrained for over 18 months. I had thought that Shell supported this UN Declaration, but it seems that this assumption must be incorrect. I would welcome your clarification on this point as I am sure that my analysis must be at fault?
I am also perplexed by the fact that Shell apparently allows Mr. Alfred Donovan to publish negative commentary about Shell on his website unhindered while I have been sued for articles posted by him on his website under my name? Mr. Donovan has also published an extract from a legal submission purportedly made by Shell International to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in which Shell stated that it supports the right of Mr. Alfred Donovan to criticise Shell on his website. I have also read the November 2005 email to Alfred Donovan from Shell International General Counsel Mr. Richard Wiseman in which Mr Wiseman confirms how tolerant Shell is of Mr. Donovanís postings on his website. I trust that you can appreciate why I am so puzzled at the apparent disparity in treatment. I am sure there must be a logical explanation?
It therefore seems appropriate to ask you in your new capacity whether the relevant postings by Mr. Donovan i.e. the claimed extract from Shellís submission to the WIPO and the November 2005 email from Mr. Wiseman are genuine? Surely they must be false??? Why would Shell encourage Mr. Donovan to indulge in his rights to freedom of expression while simultaneously adopting a totally different approach towards me? Something really must be seriously amiss.
The answers to my questions are important
if - as I assume must be the case - you genuinely
want to encourage whistleblowers to speak out if
they become aware of misdeeds which are in
contravention of the Shell Statement of General
Business Principles (SGBP).