By Toby McIntosh
An external appeals body at the World Bank on March 18 said it “might properly intervene” in case of “unreasonable delay” by the Bank in handling requests for information.
Eyeonglobaltransparency.net asked the Access to Information Appeals Board (AIAB) to get involved over the Bank’s eight-month delay in handling a request and appeal submitted by EYE.
The World Bank, however, argued that the Board, a panel of three external experts, has jurisdiction only after the internal appeals panel, the Access to Information Committee (AIC), finishes considering appeals.
The Board, in a March 18, 2020, decision, concurred that it has “quite narrow authority,” but said it “might properly intervene in a case where there has been both an unreasonable delay and the World Bank has not demonstrated its due diligence in locating and reviewing a large number of documents. in cases of unreasonable delay.”
Request for Documents on Tanzanian Matters
Toby McIntosh, editor of Eyeonglobaltransparency.net, had appealed to the Board for help regarding a request made July 8, 2019, for documents concerning the Bank’s views on changes to a Tanzanian statistics law. (Plenty of previous EYE articles on this.)
The request was completely denied on Aug. 2, 2019. An internal appeal, filed Sept. 17, 2019, has been pending since then with the AIC. The committee on Nov. 14 told McIntosh that more time was necessary “due to the high number of documents identified as responsive.” The AIC is mandated to make its best efforts to reach a decision on appeals within 45 working days, but EYE’s appeal has now been pending for over six months.
Inquiries by McIntosh on Dec. 10, Jan. 20, and Feb. 20, again drew replies that more time was needed.
On Feb. 20, McIntosh sought help from the Board.
Appealing to the Board, McIntosh questioned whether the delay was justifiable and alleged that the delay constituted a violation of the Bank’s Access to Information policy. He said that without Board intervention there is no check on slow Bank responses, which effectively amount to denials of an internal appeal.
On Feb. 24, the AIC wrote McIntosh to say that additional time was needed “to ensure the [AIC] has accurate information to consider under appeal.” The AIC also said, “It is to your benefit that the Bank is diligently looking at all information you requested under appeal for which the additional time is needed.” The AIC’s letter went on to state that the request was being interpreted “broadly” and that “the universe of information that needs to be considered is voluminous.”
Board Investigates
The Board made inquiries with the Bank, turning up new information on the number of documents involved.
The decision reports that there are “approximately 500 documents” involved. This information was conveyed to the AIC in mid-November but never passed on to the requester.
The board decision further reveals:
On November 26, the AIC again met to discuss the appeal and the additional clarifications it had gotten from the business unit,” the Board reported. “The AIC decided to request the business unit to review the documents to eliminate duplicate copies and more clearly identify the responsive documents.
Board Says It Could Assert Jurisdiction
In its decision, the Board said the appeal was timely and that the requester had made “a prima facie case for an improper withholding, in light of the delays in responding to his appeal.”
But in deciding that its mandate prohibits intervention, the Board concluded, “The AIAB’s authority to hear the appeal in this case, however, is lacking in that the AIC has not yet made an initial decision to grant or deny access to documents.”
Nevertheless, the Board asserted that it might have jurisdiction under certain circumstances.
16. We note that although the AIAB’s quite narrow authority is contingent upon the AIC having made a decision about disclosure, the AIAB might properly intervene in a case where there has been both an unreasonable delay and the World Bank has not demonstrated its due diligence in locating and reviewing a large number of documents. Here, however, the Bank has made good faith assurances to the AIAB that the business unit and the AIC Secretariat are actively working on the request.
The decision appears to establish that the Board could potentially find that delays violate the Bank’s access policy.
In a rebuke to the Bank, the AIAB decision states that “the AIAB members have concerns about how the request was handled at both the initial response stage and the appeals stage.” It elaborates:
The written communications with the Requester failed to provide even minimal information about the nature and volume of the responsive records. No one attempted to talk with the Requester at any point in the process. Better communications would go some way towards helping the Requester understand what the Bank is doing to comply with its AI Policy and why it will take more time still, especially given that the request was made in July 2019 and the appeal in September 2019.
Follow EYE at @tobyjmcintosh
