I worked for GSMA's Mobile for Development (M4D) for six years. Predominantly FCDO-funded, M4D brings together mobile operators, technology innovators, governments and development organisations to advance digital inclusion and socio-economic development.

As a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Manager, my work focused on evaluations, evidence and organisational learning. In 2025 I was asked to contribute to a donor-funded evaluation commissioned by GSMA. I spoke candidly about organisational accountability, staff wellbeing and the handling of previous evaluation findings.

In March 2026, my role was identified for redundancy. My employment was terminated the following month.

I still do not understand the basis for this decision. In a wider restructuring, GSMA reduced five M4D MEL Manager positions to four. Rather than following a consistent redundancy practice of pooling and comparatively assessing the five MEL Managers for the four remaining positions, GSMA selected my role alone.

GSMA has since acknowledged that no comparative selection took place, arguing that our roles were sufficiently different to justify a ‘pool of one’. Despite repeated requests, I have received no clear explanation of who originally proposed selecting my role alone for redundancy, what informed that decision, or what safeguards were considered to ensure objectivity.

Had GSMA provided a clear, evidence-backed explanation of how and why my role was singled out for redundancy, including who made that decision, I would still have been disappointed but ultimately able to accept it. Despite repeated requests, a formal appeal and now Tribunal proceedings, GSMA is still not willing to answer these fundamental questions*. Instead, GSMA has submitted a 21-page legal defence denying decision-maker knowledge of my contributions to the 2025 evaluation and disputing the statutory definition and requirements of whistleblowing-related detriment.

*On 26 October 2026, GSMA formally opposed my application asking the Tribunal to order the disclosure of the relevant information and documents.

Why challenge the dismissal?

I fundamentally disagree with GSMA's justification that my role was sufficiently different to the other MEL Managers to avoid comparative assessment. GSMA also appeared to rely on a purposefully narrow description of my responsibilities to validate their approach. I know how closely my role overlapped with the other MEL Managers as only months before being made redundant they had covered my responsibilities while I was on paternity leave.

I grew concerned that my selection for redundancy might instead have been influenced by my participation in an evaluation the previous year. At my final redundancy meeting I raised concerns of whistleblowing-related detriment, provided supporting evidence and requested an investigation while still employed. I cited GSMA's Grievance and Speak Up policies and made it clear that the underlying organisational issues should be investigated regardless of my redundancy outcome.

GSMA instead proceeded with my dismissal.

During my subsequent redundancy appeal, I provided further details and evidence, and again requested an investigation regardless of the appeal outcome. Following the appeal outcome I again reiterated my concerns in writing. In September 2026, almost five months after I raised them, I discovered GSMA had not initiated separate investigations into any underlying organisational issues or potential misconduct.

In October 2026, after I had begun Employment Tribunal proceedings and made repeated further requests, GSMA finally agreed to investigate my concerns through their Speak Up process. I welcome this, but remain sceptical about why it didn’t happen sooner.

Why does this matter? 

GSMA maintains that my redundancy selection, consultation and appeal were fair. However, alongside the procedural irregularities and unanswered questions, their formal Tribunal defence also appears to contain discrepancies and contradictions that are difficult to reconcile with their own official redundancy rationale and records.

For example, their defence states that a particular senior manager was not involved in the redundancy process conducted in respect of the Claimant, while GSMA's own consultation records identify that same manager as having reviewed my counterproposal before it was rejected. This does not establish who initially selected my role or made the final dismissal decision. It does, however, raise questions about GSMA's subsequent characterisation of senior management's involvement, the potential diffusion of responsibility for key decisions, and whether institutional self-protection might have influenced how these matters are now being presented.

GSMA’s global role and influence: GSMA represents the global mobile industry, working with governments, development agencies and technology companies. Their international influence includes published guidance on good governance, whistleblowing and reporting mechanisms.

GSMA also commits to protecting those who speak up and identifies trust, transparency and accountability as core principles. Their internal policies encourage speaking up, assign responsibilities to recipients of concerns, and explicitly say employees need neither prove their concerns nor investigate them themselves.

As a MEL Manager, I acted in accordance with my professional principles, as well as those GSMA claims to uphold. The questions consequently extend beyond my employment dispute: Having suitable policies is one thing, but how can organisations ensure they actually work in practice?

M4D as an FCDO-funded programme: The independent evaluation I contributed to was commissioned by GSMA as a formal requirement of its FCDO funding. Where public money supports independent evaluations, employees should be able to contribute openly, challenging findings should be taken seriously, and those raising concerns should not fear adverse consequences. This is particularly important when evaluations aim to promote critical reflection, accountability and learning from publicly funded programmes' successes and failures.

My case again raises a wider question: What whistleblowing protection should apply when employees speak openly during independent employer-commissioned evaluations?

An adviser at Protect, the independent whistleblowing charity, highlighted the potential wider significance of this question, particularly how section 43C(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies to information disclosed through employer-commissioned evaluations.

Why do I need help?

‘Delay, Deny, Defend’ is a corporate strategy usually associated with unscrupulous insurance companies trying to avoid or minimise valid claims, by relying on claimants’ frustration and financial exhaustion. I am certainly not suggesting that GSMA has intentionally adopted such a strategy. However, after 6 months of repeatedly asking, I have still not received a clear explanation of who originally identified my role for redundancy, or how that decision was made.

Rather than being able to focus on finding work and supporting my young family, I have spent an estimated 600 hours since April reviewing records, preparing correspondence and assembling over 250 pages of evidence. GSMA's opaque Tribunal defence has raised further questions, and I now face an increasingly complex legal dispute against a global organisation with substantial resources and professional legal representation.

A number of law firms have expressed interest in supporting my case, but given its complexity, even reduced fees remain above what I can personally afford. Kilgannon & Partners, the specialist employment law firm, has estimated £4,320 including VAT for an initial review of GSMA's defence and relevant documents, legal advice and agreement on next steps.

My initial CrowdJustice target is £5,000 to cover this assessment and platform fees. If successful, I will seek further funding for the ongoing Tribunal disclosure, case preparation and, ideally, representation at the final hearing.

How can you help?

If you believe my redundancy, or the wider questions it raises, deserve proper legal scrutiny, please consider donating to help me secure professional legal support. Any contribution, however small, will make a real difference.

Even just sharing this campaign will help raise awareness of the underlying issues and will be massively appreciated.

Thank you thank you!

Mector Hatthews, Ex-MEL Manager

NOTE ON ONGOING PROCEEDINGS: Employment Tribunal proceedings are ongoing. My claims concern unfair dismissal and alleged whistleblowing-related treatment. GSMA disputes my allegations and maintains that my redundancy selection, consultation and appeal were fair and my concerns appropriately considered. I disagree. This account reflects my experience, understanding of the evidence and legal position; the Tribunal has not yet determined the claims.

GSMA has agreed to separate internal Speak Up reviews. Those matters remain unresolved, with no finding of wrongdoing established.

CrowdJustice funds will pay Kilgannon & Partners' professional fees directly as described above.