World Bank Group accused of failing to support survivors of sexual abuse at Bridge schools in Kenya

Two international advocacy groups have taken issue with the World Bank Group’s failure to offer relief to victims of child sexual abuse at Bridge International Academies in Kenya one year after its President Ajay Banga apologised to the survivors, acknowledging “the trauma they experienced” 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 programme” designed “with input from survivors.”

At the same time, he announced an “external review” of  allegations that IFC staff and Bridge management colluded to obstruct and delay CAO’s work.

However, Inclusive Development International and Accountability Counsel say that one year on, the four survivors who came forward with complaints have received no remedy or relief.

They say the “remediation programme” that Banga promised 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 prioritise outreach to the communities around Bridge schools that would support other survivors to come forward should they so wish,” the two organisations said in a statement.

They also took issue with a press statement issued by the WBG last Friday reporting the results of the external review of IFC’s alleged interference with the CAO investigation.

“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 by global law firm Freshfields found that that IFC did not act with the intent to obstruct or frustrate the CAO investigation.  Freshfields also found that IFC could have cooperated with the CAO investigation in a more timely, efficient, and rigorous manner.

The WBG statement added that nonetheless, Freshfields concluded that IFC’s approach to cooperation with the CAO investigation 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,” Inclusive Development International and Advocacy Counsel said.

They added that few details in the press statement do not address the following publicly reported facts which led them to call for an investigation in first place.

This includes CAO’s revelation that between September and December 2020, IFC and Bridge staff discussed and then executed a plan which was designed to “neutralise”  its lead investigator on the Bridge case with the aim of delaying publication of the allegations 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,” the two groups said.

They added that the WBG statement did not also reveal when the external review established if the move to put CAO’s lead investigator on the Bridge case before completion of the report was retaliatory and if the report was diluted after his removal. Also not clear is whether, WBG properly applied its whistleblower protection rules.

The groups also want disclosure on are with regard to why IFC entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with Bridge in June 2020 without CAO’s agreement or participation and why it committed to keep information regarding child sexual abuse secret.

They also noted that there is the perception that former WBG President Malpass pushed former CAO Vice President Gratacós out of his job when he refused compromise CAO’s independence, which was announced shortly after revelation of Bridge child sexual abuse allegations. In this regard, they are seeking to know whether  IFC management unduly influenced this decision.

Also not clarified are reports that IFC staff destroyed evidence of sexual abuse at Bridge schools and whether it is consistent with Freshfields finding that IFC’s lack of cooperation did not impact CAO’s work.

“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,” Inclusive Development and Advocacy Counsel said.

WGB launched investigations into the allegations as a result of increasing public pressure, a critical internal report, and an investigation launched by the United States Congress.

Following the release of the CAO report, the two organisations, together with urgewald e.V., EACH Rights, Education International, Gender Action, and GI-ESCR had called for immediate, independent investigations to hold all responsible parties accountable for their actions and for compensation for the victims.

With an IFC investment of US$ 13.5 million between 2014 and 2022, the IFC’s backing enabled Bridge’s expansion across Kenya, Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria, and India, encompassing thousands of students. However, Bridge employed unlicensed teachers and ran a large number of unregistered schools, increasing the risk of sexual abuse and exploitation of its pupils.

“It is imperative that those responsible, including Bridge International Academies and its financial supporters, are held accountable, contributing to the necessary compensation for abused children and exploited workers. We urge the World Bank to establish a fund to redress harm suffered by any survivors of child sexual abuse during the period of its support for Bridge schools,” David Edwards, EI’s General Secretary stated in March last year. “Profit-driven operators like BIA have no place in education. They hinder our collective mission to ensure every child’s right to free, quality education,” he added.

The case stems stems from a 2018 filing against IFC, the private sector arm of the World Bank group, about Bridge schools operating in Kenya.

CAO’s investigation accused the IFC of “deficient” environmental and social due diligence, failing to identify or assess child sex abuse risks. The report recommends both project-specific actions for remediation for survivors and institutional-level improvements to prevent future occurrences.

The story of Bridge International Academies began in 2009 in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya, with a group of investors with the ambition to create the world´s largest for-profit primary education chain.

At the heart of its ‘academy in a box’ model was a controversial practice: employing untrained personnel as a cost-cutting mechanism. This approach, heavily reliant on a scripted curriculum delivered through tablets, soon raised red flags about the education quality, accessibility, and affordability for children from low-income families in Africa and Asia.

A study by Education International and the Kenyan National Union of Teachers revealed serious deficiencies in the Bridge model in Kenya, notably its dependence on unqualified staff and a rigid, non-local curriculum, which compromised the accessibility and quality of education for the most marginalised. Similarly, concerns were raised about schools in Uganda, where a governmental directive shut down of BIA schools in October 2016 for not respecting national standard and for “poor hygiene and sanitation [which] put the life and safety of the school children in danger.”

Despite these concerns, Bridge schools received significant investments from prominent figures and organisations such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pearson Ltd., the U.K. Department for Development.

Education International and its member organisations persistently called out Bridge and its operations and reached out to the World Bank and major Bridge supporters. EI urged donors to reconsider their financial support in light of BIA’s practices, highlighting among other things, the neglect and disregard for national educational and legal standards, the employment of unqualified staff, and the charging of fees that undermine the right to quality education for all children.

Education International President, Susan Hopgood, underscored EI’s longstanding commitment to opposing profit-driven educational models that exploit vulnerable communities and undercut the right to free, quality public education for all. “The Brigde model undermines the professional standards and qualifications of teachers, which are fundamental to quality education. This case serves as a call to action to strengthen the foundations of public education systems, ensuring that every child, irrespective of socio-economic background, has access to free quality education delivered by trained and qualified teachers. It requires all governments, intergovernmental organisations, and International Financial Institutions to commit to invest in teachers and fully fund public education.”