By Toby McIntosh

October 17, 2025

The International Finance Corporation has denied access to an independent review that cleared the International Finance Corporation of obstructing an internal investigation into a controversial education loan.

The exculpatory report was prepared by an international law firm, Freshfields LLP, and accepted by the IFC Board, as announced on March 7.

World Bank Group President Ajay Banga had called for the review after the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) found that IFC had not acted early or aggressively enough after receiving allegations of child sexual abuse by Bridge International Academies in Kenya.

The law firm was asked to looked into “whether IFC, intentionally or otherwise, impeded, restricted, constrained, burdened, or interfered with the CAO investigation, and whether such action or inaction limited the effectiveness of the CAO investigation,” summarized the IFC announcement.

Freshfields cleared the IFC. But its report was not disclosed.

Describing the report, the IFC said, “Freshfields concluded, after a robust review which included interviews with relevant witnesses and the examination of thousands of documents, that IFC did not act with the intent to obstruct or frustrate the CAO investigation.”

However, the report was critical of the IFC, too.

The IFC reported: “Freshfields also found that IFC could have cooperated with the CAO investigation in a more timely, efficient, and rigorous manner.  Nonetheless, Freshfields concluded that IFC’s approach to cooperation with the CAO investigation did not impact the CAO’s ultimate conclusions.

The IFC Board accepted five recommendations from Freshfields, the IFC press release said.

Request  Denied for Three Reasons

The IFC’s decision to deny access to the Freshfields report was made Sept. 21 for a three reasons.

First, it said the report is protected by the attorney-client privilege, “having been prepared by outside counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice and maintained as confidential.”

Second, the report “qualifies as Board-deliberative information or material,” according to the decision.

Third, the report is exempt from disclosure because it “contains commercially sensitive and confidential information.”

And because the decision was made by the IFC Board of Directors, the IFC said, it “is not subject to further review.”

AIP Advisor’s Decisions Now Disclosed 

The decision was made public under a new policy, effective  as of September, to publish decisions by the IFC Access to Information Advisor, who handles appeals. The IFC webpage on the appeals process now has two decisions posted.  This additional transparency about appeals tracks what is provided by the World Bank.

The other decision posted concerns a request brought by EYE. The denial of information was affirmed first by IFC AIP Advisor and next by the second level of appeal, the Access to Information Appeals Panel, made up of three persons from outside the agency.

The request by EYE  sought a small sample of the IFC responses sent to requesters. But the IFC said its replies do not constitute “institutional information” subject to disclosure.  Read more about this case here: IFC Denial of Document Request Reveals Narrow Scope of Info Access Policy.

The denial comes as the IFC is conducting a review of its access to information policy.

Many Requests, Few Appeals of Denials

 The IFC gets many requests for information . How many are fulfilled or denied is not known. But few denials are appealed.

The IFC processes “approximately 1,500-2000 information requests per year, ranging from general information requests to specific disclosure requests, and some that straddle the two,” according to an IFC statement to EYE.

Unlike the World Bank, the IFC does not keep data on the disposition of requests  of formal requests, the IFC said. Nor does it post summaries of requests, as does the World Bank.

The IFC said that over the past four years there have been only four times when requesters have used the process to appeal denials. The time period is for the fiscal years 2022-2025 (World Bank fiscal years run July 1 to June 30).

The IFC on Sept. 15 denied EYE’s request for copies of the loan agreements and any amendments related to the Sal de Vida Project (45668) in Argentina.

The IFC said that it “does not disclose financial, business, proprietary, or other non-public information about its clients or other third parties.” The reply continued, “More specifically, paragraph 11(a)(i) of the AIP, specially provides: “Similarly, IFC does not disclose: (i) Legal documentation or correspondence pertaining to IFC’s investments.”

This article was originally published on Eye on Global Transparency