Who Governs WHO South-East Asia?

The controversy surrounding Saima Wazed’s prolonged absence from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) South-East Asia Regional Office is no longer merely about one official’s employment status. It has become a test of whether the world’s leading public-health institution protects due process, respects mandates granted by member states and shields its decisions from actual or perceived political pressure.

Saima, daughter of former Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina, was elected WHO Regional Director for South-East Asia in November 2023, receiving eight of the ten votes cast by member states. After confirmation by WHO’s Executive Board, she began a five-year term on 1 February 2024. She was therefore not appointed at the discretion of Bangladesh, India or Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. But her authority arose from WHO’s constitutional process.

Yet Saima has been absent from office since 11 July 2025, when WHO placed her on leave following allegations of corruption, fraud and abuse of power brought by Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission. She has denied wrongdoing and, according to The Indian Express, said that WHO acted at the request of Bangladesh’s then interim government without adequately explaining its decision or observing proper procedures. She has called for an independent investigation and warned that legal action may follow. WHO confirms that she has been “on leave” but has declined to discuss the substance, citing confidentiality. After more than a year of uncertainty, however, it is no longer institutionally sufficient. In the meantime, Dr Nilesh Buddha has been serving as Officer-in-Charge of the South-East Asia Regional Office in New Delhi since 17 August 2026, succeeding Dr Catharina Boehme. WHO says his appointment ensures continuity during the present “transition period”.

The terminology matters. Buddha has not been elected Regional Director, and WHO has not declared Saima’s office vacant. An officer-in-charge exercises delegated administrative authority; a regional director derives constitutional legitimacy from nomination by regional member states and appointment by the executive board. WHO continues to list Saima as Regional Director while identifying Buddha as Officer-in-Charge. She apparently retains the title and mandate, while he performs the executive functions.

Administrative continuity is essential, but it cannot indefinitely replace constitutional clarity. Article 52 of the WHO Constitution provides that a regional office shall be headed by a regional director appointed by the executive board in agreement with the relevant regional committee. Election does not grant immunity. WHO must investigate allegations and protect itself from legal, reputational and operational harm. But precautionary leave must not become an undeclared removal.

WHO’s staff framework permits administrative leave pending determination of alleged misconduct, but such leave is not intended as punishment. The rules contemplate written reasons, clarification of status and an indication of probable duration. If allegations are not established, the leave should end.

Saima Wazed reportedly says that she received insufficient reasons, no transparent investigation was disclosed to her, and her status later changed from paid to unpaid leave after she challenged WHO’s approach. These claims require independent verification. If accurate, however, they raise serious questions about proportionality, procedural fairness and the opportunity to respond.

The allegations in Bangladesh are grave and cannot be dismissed simply because they emerged after her mother’s government fell. Accusations by a national authority do not automatically become proven facts for an international organisation. WHO must assess evidence independently, distinguish judicial findings from political claims and decide whether proceedings satisfy reasonable standards of fairness.

Member states also have an institutional stake. They selected the regional leader responsible for public health across nearly two billion people. If an elected regional director can be excluded indefinitely through an internal decision without formal regional review, the balance created by Article 52 is weakened. The Director-General needs authority to avert immediate harm, but that authority should not silently override a five-year mandate.

The strongest remedy is an independent review conducted by people unconnected to WHO headquarters, SEARO, Bangladesh’s authorities or Saima’s legal team. It should determine whether the original decision complied with WHO rules; whether she received written reasons and a fair opportunity to respond; whether a formal investigation began; whether changing her pay status was lawful and proportionate; and whether political representations improperly influenced the process.

The review should also clarify the roles of the Regional Committee and Executive Board if Saima cannot return. If allegations are established through a fair process, WHO must act decisively. If they are not, administrative inertia must not consume the remainder of her mandate.

Confidentiality should protect an inquiry, not conceal accountability. Nor should Buddha carry the burdens of leadership indefinitely without the political mandate and institutional certainty the position requires. An interim arrangement needs a discernible endpoint.

WHO urges governments to follow evidence, transparency, accountability and due process. It must apply those principles to itself. Saima should neither be protected because she is Sheikh Hasina’s daughter nor punished merely because of it. The allegations against her deserve investigation, and so does WHO’s handling of her exclusion from active duty.

Until both are independently examined, SEARO will remain caught between an elected Regional Director who holds the title but cannot exercise the mandate and an Officer-in-Charge who exercises the functions without holding the elected office. For an organisation founded on rules, evidence and international cooperation, that ambiguity has already lasted too long.