One year on: No remedy or accountability for survivors of sexual abuse at World Bank Group funded schools in Kenya

One year ago today, World Bank Group President Ajay Banga apologized to survivors of child sexual abuse at Bridge International Academies, acknowledging “the trauma they experienced” at the World Bank Group-funded schools and committed to supporting them.  A March 2024 report from the World Bank Group’s internal accountability office, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), found that staff of the bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), knew about sexual abuse at Bridge schools and ignored it for years.  In response to the CAO report, Banga promised a “remediation program” designed “with input from survivors.” At the same time, he announced an “external review” of  allegations that IFC staff and Bridge management (aka NewGlobe) colluded to obstruct and delay CAO’s work. 

No remedy or relief for survivors 

One year on, survivors of child sexual abuse at Bridge schools have received no remedy or relief. The “remediation program” that Banga promised the individuals who were abused at IFC-funded Bridge schools while IFC staff looked the other way is instead being designed as a public good community wide program to provide services for sexual abuse survivors in the districts where Bridge operated. 

To meet President Banga’s year-old commitment to the survivors of child sexual abuse at Bridge schools, the Bank Group must provide immediate relief to meet the needs of those survivors. The four survivors who came forward with complaints to CAO have been clear about the support they need to reestablish their lives. Their needs are modest and the Bank Group should provide a way to address them before spending more money on expensive project design consultants. Beyond the four complainants, the Bank Group should also prioritize outreach to the communities around Bridge schools that would support other survivors to come forward should they so wish. 

No accountability for the cover-up 

Last Friday, the bank issued a short press statement reporting the results of the external review of IFC’s alleged interference with the CAO investigation into child sexual abuse at Bridge schools. IFC did not publish the investigation report itself. This report was commissioned to rebuild trust and confidence in  IFC and  CAO. A secret report cannot achieve that. It must be made public.

According to the bank’s press release, the review found that: “IFC could have cooperated with the CAO investigation in a more timely, efficient, and rigorous manner [but that], IFC’s approach … did not impact the CAO’s ultimate conclusions.” 

It is hard to reconcile this tepid statement with the well documented allegations of interference with CAO’s independence from World Bank Group management and its investigation of the abuse at Bridge schools.

The few details in the press statement do not address the following publicly reported facts which led our groups to call for an investigation in first place:

Between September and December 2020, IFC and Bridge staff discussed and then executed a plan which was designed to “neutralize” CAO’s lead investigator on the Bridge case. The documented aim of this exercise was to delay publication of the allegations of sex abuse at Bridge schools with a view to raising additional capital for Bridge without “spooking investors.” 

• Did this involve misconduct by IFC staff and/or fraud or attempted fraud against Bridge’s other investors? Was the Bank Group’s internal response to these allegations appropriate? We still don’t know.

CAO’s lead investigator on the Bridge case was put on involuntary administrative leave shortly before completion of the report. 

• Was this measure retaliatory? Was the report diluted after he was removed and did his removal facilitate dilution of the CAO report? Did the WBG properly apply its whistleblower protection rules? We still don’t know.

IFC entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with Bridge in June 2020. CAO publicly criticized the NDA saying that it was “reached without CAO’s agreement or participation,” and “included commitments from IFC that CAO would not disclose information that the client asserts to be confidential.” CAO has also said the NDA “created an appearance of seeking to chill CAO’s investigation and raised questions as to how CAO could execute its mandate in light of the confidentiality agreement’s provisions” and that it delayed CAO’s process as well as making it more costly. 

• Why did IFC commit to keep information regarding child sexual abuse secret, and what will be done to prevent this from happening again in the future? We still don’t know.

There is the perception that former WBG President Malpass pushed former CAO Vice President Gratacós out of his job when Gratacós would not compromise CAO’s independence. This decision was announced shortly after revelation of Bridge child sexual abuse allegations.

• Did IFC management unduly influence this decision? We still don’t know.  

It has been reported that IFC staff destroyed evidence of sexual abuse at Bridge schools.

• Could this be confirmed? How is this consistent with Freshfields finding that IFC’s lack of cooperation did not impact CAO’s work? We still don’t know. 

CAO reports that it engaged “independent legal counsel” to review its investigation of the sexual abuse at Bridge schools.

• Was this legal advisor independent of IFC management, or were they engaged by IFC management? Was material critical of IFC removed from the CAO report following the review by external counsel? We still don’t know.

To provide any credible response to these questions, the Bank Group’s Board must first publish the full investigation report. Otherwise, stakeholders will continue to question the World Bank Group’s  commitment to accountability and responsible investment.