By Toby McIntosh
It’s been more than a year since eyeonglobaltransparency.net asked the World Bank for documents concerning the Bank’s controversial position and actions concerning the Tanzanian statistics law.
And it’s been nine months since EYE asked the internal appeals committee to review the Bank’s initial blanket denial of the request. No answer yet. The committee says the delay is because “500 documents” are involved.
EYE sought the opinion of the Bank’s external appeal board and four months ago that board accepted the Bank’s assurances that it was working on the appeal. However, the board said it could intervene in the event of “unreasonable delay.”
What Is Unreasonable Delay?
The saga began on July 8, 2019, when EYE sought information about the Bank’s unusual criticism of the Tanzanian law to criminalize criticism of official statistics. The Bank withheld certain funding until the law was changed. (See initial EYE article in October, 2018.)
EYE sought more information, asking for “all World Bank documents concerning amendments to the Tanzanian Statistics Act between April 1, 2018, and July 8, 2019,” including communications with the Tanzanian government.
EYE’s initial request was completely denied on Aug. 28, 2019 (a process that took almost twice as long as the prescribed 20 working days). Declining to release any material, the Bank said the documents “are covered either by the Attorney-Client Privilege or the Deliberative Information exceptions under the Policy.”
Follow EYE @tobyjmcintosh
EYE Appeals in September 2019
EYE on Sept. 17, 2019, appealed to the internal appeals body, the Access to Information Committee (AIC), where it has been pending ever since.
“Neither of the asserted exemptions justifies a complete denial,” EYE said in its appeal, also arguing that redactions should be used to separate exempt from non-exempt material.
Under the Bank’s Access to Information Policy, “The AI Committee makes its best efforts to reach a decision on appeals within 45 working days of receiving an appeal.” However, the committee said more time was necessary.
On Feb. 20, 2020, still without a ruing four months after filling the appeal, EYE asked for help from the external appeals panel, the three-person Access to Information Appeals Board (AIAB).
External Panel Probes Process
The AIAB made inquiries with the Bank, turning up new information on the number of documents involved.
“Approximately 500 documents” are involved, the Board reported, more specific information than provided in previous Bank statements to EYE. Bank messages advising EYE that more time was necessary had referred to “the high number of documents,” as stated in December 2019, and “voluminous,” as stated in February of 2020.
While there is no definition of “documents” in Bank correspondence or the AIAB decision, the term could refer to an individual e-mails as a document. The Board did not indicate how many pages were involved or provide an estimated review time.
The AIAB decision on March 18, 2020, describes some of the internal committee’s process, including time to determine what documents were involved. (See EYE article.)
It took a month for the relevant Bank “business unit” to report on how many documents were involved, after which the committee, on Nov. 13, asked the business unit for more information. On Nov. 26 the committee met again and “decided to request the business unit to review the documents to eliminate duplicate copies and more clearly identify the responsive documents.” After that point the AIAB’s chronology of committee deliberations ends.
Good Faith Pledge Accepted by Board
In its decision, the external appeals board said “the Bank has made good faith assurances to the AIAB that the business unit and the AIC Secretariat are actively working on the request.”
But while accepting the Bank’s assurances in March, the Board asserted that 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.”
Since March, EYE continues to be told that the appeals committee needs more time. On June 29, the AIC Secretariat wrote:
The Bank understands your appeal is taking longer than usual.
As previously noted, your request for information involves more than 500 documents to be considered by the Access to Information Committee (AIC). The AIC is carrying out an extensive due diligence in order to reach a decision on your appeal soon.
The Bank appreciates your understanding.
