By Toby McIntosh
The World Bank, or maybe Sierra Leone, has denied access to a document that could shed light on the use of Bank funds to fight Covid.
In denying disclosure, the Bank utilized one of the virtually ironclad exceptions in its Access to Information Policy that allows it, and member countries, to withhold documents.
In this case, it withheld an audit report on Covid spending in Sierra Leone.
When the pandemic began, the Bank stressed that it would prevent corruption in the use of the Covid funds. Among other things, the Bank said it was “supporting governments’ efforts to be transparent about procurement and results,” according to a 2020 statement headlined Corruption and the Covid-19 Response and as described in this 2020 blog post. The Bank also emphasized the value of audits.
Eye on Global Transparency made several requests for documents as a small attempt at understanding how this accountability would occur. All have been rejected. The latest denial took eight months.
Covid Auditing Contract Not Disclosed
Picking Sierra Leone as a country to watch, EYE noticed that the Bank had supported an audit of Covid spending.
EYE’s first request, on Nov. 3, 2020, was for documents concerned the Bank’s “prior review” of a $324,000 two-year contract for “internal audit services” in Sierra Leone. There were a number of red flags about the contract awarded to the accounting firm BDO Sierra Leone. The final contract amount was four times larger than the projected $80,000. Also, as a “direct” contract, there was no competitive bidding.
EYE’s request was initially misunderstood as a request for a copy of the contract and was denied using the “exceptional circumstances” exemption, a catch-all exemption saying that the likely harm from disclosure would outweigh the benefits of disclosure. (See EYE article.)
On appeal, the Access to Information Committee (AIC), a committee of Bank staffers, found even more justifications, saying disclosure of documents about the Bank’s review of the contract would undercut the deliberative process, expose confidential information, cause “reputational risk,” and “strain the relationship between the Bank and the borrower.”
Note: The Bank continues to resist partial disclosure, the practice known as “redaction.” Releasing the portions of relevant documents that are not covered by exemptions is commonly done under national freedom of information laws. The Bank, however, considers the option to be “voluntary” and almost never used it.
EYE separately requested a copy of the audit contract, but again access was denied. The Bank said disclosure would interfere with its ability to ensure that the money was used only for the intended purpose. EYE appealed to the internal appeals committee and lost. (See EYE article.)
Second Request
Four years later, on April 19, 2024, EYE asked for documents received from the government or the auditor related to the audit contract and any Bank documents evaluating the results of the audit.
The request was denied Dec. 23, 2024, based on one of the most unassailable impediments to getting documents from the Bank, the “third party veto” provision.
The Bank doesn’t call it that, but that’s how it functions. The exemption allows the Bank not to disclose “Information Provided by Member Countries or Third Parties in Confidence.”
The policy states: “The Bank has an obligation to protect information that it receives in confidence. Thus, the Bank does not provide access to information provided to it by a member country or a third party on the understanding of confidentiality, without the express permission of that member country or third party.”
Apparently the audit results were submitted in confidence.
Although the Bank “endeavors” to answer request within 20 working days, this answer to this request took eight months.
