Musician, public figure, and former Miss Universe judge Omar Harfouch has stepped down from his role on the official judging panel for the upcoming Miss Universe competition scheduled in Bangkok, Thailand. His resignation came just days before the international pageant, following what he describes as deeply troubling discoveries about how finalists were allegedly chosen. According to Harfouch, the Miss Universe Organization (MUO) quietly arranged an unofficial group he calls an “impromptu jury”—one that he says selected the Top 30 finalists well before the official judges evaluated any of the 136 contestants.
Harfouch went public with these claims on November 18, using his Instagram Stories to outline what he believes were serious breaches in transparency and fairness. He explained that he had agreed to be a judge under the impression that he and the other appointed judges would independently evaluate every contestant during official events, particularly the preliminary round. Instead, he says he discovered that an internal list of the Top 30 had already been drawn up before contestants ever stepped on stage. This revelation, he said, directly contradicted the fair and open judging process outlined in his contract.
In his public remarks, Harfouch emphasized that the alleged secret panel was of major concern not only because it operated outside the official judging structure, but also because—he claims—it consisted of individuals who had personal relationships with some contestants. He stated that one of the alleged members of this unofficial committee was even having an affair with a participating contestant, something he believes represents a profound conflict of interest. He further described how one of the individuals responsible for handling vote counts and managing results was also allegedly connected personally to a contestant, raising what he viewed as unacceptable ethical issues.
According to Harfouch, he confronted MUO officials — including pageant owner Raul Rocha — to seek clarity and to push for transparency. During the conversation, Harfouch says he questioned why a Top 30 group had been assembled before official judging had even begun. He alleges that his concerns were dismissed with reassurances that “everything will be fine” and that he should simply proceed with judging. To Harfouch, this response indicated that his concerns were not being taken seriously and that MUO leadership was unwilling to address what he saw as a breach in protocol and fairness.
He also referenced a social media post published by MUO showing a carousel of names labeled as the “Beyond the Crown Selection Committee.” According to Harfouch, the organization presented these individuals as part of an inspirational committee, yet failed to specify what roles they played or how they were connected to the selection of contestants. Harfouch questioned why MUO did not clarify their function and why these individuals were introduced so late in the process — remarks that fueled his suspicion that this group was linked to the alleged pre-selection of finalists.
Despite his concerns, MUO firmly denies all allegations. In a public statement released shortly after Harfouch’s claims circulated, the organization stated that no impromptu jury existed, no external body had been authorized to evaluate contestants, and that all evaluations followed MUO’s established, transparent protocols. MUO added that, given Harfouch’s stated desire not to participate and his “public mischaracterization” of internal processes, it formally accepted and acknowledged his withdrawal from the judging panel.
Harfouch, however, has continued to defend his position. He reiterated that the judges were told they would be choosing finalists from the entire pool of 136 contestants. Instead, he claims they were instructed orally that they would judge only from a smaller, pre-determined group of 30 candidates. He emphasized that this was not what he had agreed to and that he could not participate in what he believed to be a misrepresentation of the judging process both to the judges and to the contestants who invested significant time, money, and effort to compete.
He described how many contestants traveled with their families—parents, siblings, even extended relatives—who personally financed travel and accommodation in Bangkok. According to him, these young women believed wholeheartedly that the judging process was fair, and he felt it would be unethical to remain silent while knowing that this core assumption of fairness was potentially undermined. Harfouch said he repeatedly asked MUO leaders to explain the situation transparently to participants but claims his request was rejected, which ultimately led to his decision to resign from both the judging panel and his planned musical performance at the event.
Adding to the controversy, one anonymous contestant also spoke out, saying she and many others were devastated to discover the rumors of pre-selection only after finishing their final rehearsal for the preliminary round. She said contestants learned about the alleged pre-selected Top 30 not from MUO leadership but from social media discussions circulating among pageant followers. According to her, contestants felt blindsided by the claim that a selection had been made without input from official judges and before they had the opportunity to perform on stage. She also supported Harfouch’s decision to speak publicly, expressing gratitude for his willingness to challenge what he believed was an unjust situation.
The anonymous contestant added that several of the women included in the rumored pre-selected Top 30 allegedly had personal or professional connections to individuals within MUO or the so-called selection committee. For many contestants, this appeared to reinforce the perception that the contest was not being evaluated solely on merit. She stressed that while contestants join Miss Universe understanding competition is fierce, they at least expect transparency and fairness — expectations she believed were compromised by the situation described.
The timing of the controversy has created intense global attention, as the Miss Universe final is scheduled to take place on November 21. Historically, the competition has positioned itself as a platform promoting empowerment, leadership, advocacy, and equality for women worldwide. Allegations of pre-selection, favoritism, and conflicts of interest pose reputational risks for a brand built on these values. For many longtime followers of the pageant, this dispute raises broader questions about integrity within high-profile beauty competitions and the responsibilities organizations bear toward contestants who commit substantial time, financial resources, and emotional investment.
As of now, MUO stands by its official protocols and has not announced any internal investigation or changes in process. The show is still expected to proceed on schedule, and the organization maintains that all evaluations are conducted transparently. However, Harfouch’s allegations and the reactions from at least one contestant have prompted widespread discussion among pageant watchers, industry experts, and fans. Many observers are waiting to see whether MUO will offer additional clarification, whether other contestants or judges will speak out, and how this controversy will influence public trust in the competition moving forward.
