What is the ruling on malicious complaints signed by an unknown person?

Question:
Some people with weak souls resort to sending complaints and malicious reports under a pseudonym, or signed "A Doer of Good," against some officials or others who are strict in establishing the truth. It has been mentioned in the Noble Qur'an: [Surah al-Hujurat: 6]. The noble commands that align with the rulings of the pure Shari'ah do not accept such claims; because their objectives are clear and their intentions are known. We ask you, Your Eminence, to offer advice and clarify the religious aspects of such complaints signed "A Doer of Good" or under a pseudonym.

Answer:
The principle is that the testimony of one who does not identify himself is not accepted, and his statement is not accepted; because he may be an open sinner, or he may have a bad intention. I have heard the verse: , so he is not to be relied upon if he says: So-and-so did such-and-such, or: So-and-so said such-and-such, or: So-and-so left such-and-such. He is not to be relied upon until he identifies himself, testifies, and the legal proof is established regarding the person.
But if the one who wrote the advice is an advisor or a doer of good who is reporting an incident that occurred in the institution, or in the office, it is obligatory for the office manager to whom it was written to look into the matter; because this writer may be, as he said, an advisor, but if he were named, he might be harmed. If he says: In the office, such-and-such occurred, or: In such-and-such department, such-and-such is happening, it is obligatory for the recipient to look into the matter: Is it true? A doer of good tells you: The employees in your office do not pray, they do not perform their work, they harm the visitors, fear Allah, hold them accountable, look into the matter: Is it truthful? Do not use the excuse that he did not name himself and neglect it. No, if he had named himself, perhaps you would have harmed him, and the recipient would have been harmed; he may be an employee as well.
So if the writer—who did not name himself—is an advisor who wants the official to look into the matter, and he did not say: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, but rather said: Look, in your office such-and-such is happening, in your department such-and-such is happening, it is obligatory for you, O official—whether the office manager, the dean of the office, or the like—to look into those to whom the matter is attributed. If it is said that they do not pray, look into them; if they smoke, look into them; if they neglect cases and letters, look into them; if they harm and insult the visitors, look into them. Do not use the excuse that he did not name himself and that is all. Fear Allah and look into what he told you and advised you about, even if he did not name himself. But if he says: So-and-so does such-and-such, and he names a specific individual; do not obey him in that until you look into the matter and know whether he is truthful or not in it. He says: So-and-so does not pray, and he is in your office with you. Look into whether he prays or does not pray? Instruct the people with you: Look, does he pray or not? Does he smoke or not? And you are prohibited from smoking in the administration. Look at what he said, and do not rely on it. You perform the other means. And as for taking it as a pretext—that he did not name himself—to waste the matter, no, that is a mistake.