Pressure mounts on IFC to release report on Bridge sexual abuse case

Civil society groups are ramping up pressure on the International Finance Corporation — the World Bank’s private sector arm — to release the findings of an independent investigation into the institution’s handling of sexual abuse allegations at a Kenyan school chain it helped finance between 2013 and 2016. International law firm Freshfields was commissioned in 2024 by World Bank President Ajay Banga to examine whether IFC interfered with an investigation by its own watchdog, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, or CAO, into allegations that more than 20 students were abused at a for-profit school chain, Bridge International Academies, where IFC held a minority stake. A brief summary of the Freshfield’s findings was published in March and concluded there was “no evidence that IFC intentionally obstructed” the CAO’s probe. However, the full report remains confidential. IFC told Devex that the procedures reflect Freshfields’ advice and existing policy. The institution emphasized that key findings were published in the March summary and that several recommendations have already been implemented. But Accountability Counsel, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that represented the former Bridge students, has repeatedly requested access to the full report through IFC’s access to information, or A2I, mechanism, arguing that disclosure is essential to rebuild public trust. The earlier requests were denied, with the World Bank board citing various exceptions, including attorney-client privilege, in what Accountability Counsel described as a “boilerplate response.” There are also questions about the availability of the report within the bank itself. Accountability Counsel filed a fresh appeal in late October, which has now been sent to IFC’s Independent Appeals Panel. The panel, composed of three external experts, has 60 days to respond and determine whether the board was justified in withholding the report. Campaigners said they are relieved the case will be reviewed by the panel, having feared that recent updates to IFC’s access to information policy — published just days before their final appeal was lodged — could prevent the case from moving forward “We’ve sought review by an independent panel in hopes that they will determine that the report should be disclosed in full, or at a minimum, that they will clarify which discrete aspects of the report require redaction before publication of the rest,” Margaux Day, executive director at Accountability Counsel, told Devex. “IFC impacts lots of people and they deserve to know that IFC won’t turn a blind eye when there are problems. It’s hard to trust the IFC if it won’t publish the report,” Day added. The NGO argues that IFC’s refusal to disclose the full findings of the Freshfields report undermines its stated commitment to accountability. It points out that IFC and its board have already recognized the public interest in the case, including pressure from U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Peter Welch, and also issued multiple statements about both the CAO and Freshfields investigations. Furthermore, in the past, the World Bank has published full independent investigations — such as the review into the Doing Business reports — setting a precedent that civil society says should apply to the Freshfields report as well. Advocates also say the case highlights broader issues with IFC’s transparency framework. The institution does not systematically track disclosure requests, reasons for denials, or how exceptions are applied, making accountability difficult, Day said. The access to information policy is currently under review as part of the World Bank’s broader sustainability framework, with civil society urging reforms to make it align with international best practice. This would mean tightening the list of exemptions, requiring IFC to prove harm would be caused by disclosure, and ensuring public interest always wins when the benefits outweigh the risks, according to Raphael Vagliano, senior legal officer at the Centre for Law and Democracy, an NGO that has lobbied IFC to strengthen its A2I policy. “The policy’s regime of exceptions is one of its weak areas. Many exceptions are overbroad, and the exceptions listed are not even exhaustive and instead are framed as ‘general considerations’ for IFC to take into account when deciding to disclose information, which essentially means that IFC ultimately has unfettered discretion over what information it releases.” The scope of IFC’s A2I policy also needs to be extended to include all information and documents held by IFC, Vagliano added. He hopes the ongoing review means IFC takes steps to make “substantial improvements” to its policy and bring it into line with other international financial institutions’ access to information policies.