Willful Lies to the US Treasury Department When Approached to Use Mediation or Arbitration

An American lawyer who was representing the World Bank during the internal investigation removed herself from the case after the Bank used lies as an instrument of its legal defense. The World Bank replaced her with a Nigerian lawyer who has aggressively pushed the Bank's perjury-centric legal defense. The Nigerian took the Bank's perjury to a new level. The perjury included using forged documents, including creating a fake board list, deleting Dr. Biru's title and leadership roles as well as his management accomplishments from the Bank's publications and websites.

Whether it is to cover up its data fabrication to scam US tax payers or its legal strategy against Dr. Biru's whistleblowing and racial discrimination charges, the World Bank's defense is anchored in willful and blatant lies. Having "extensively reviewed" Dr. Biru's case, the US Treasury and the US Board of Director to the World Bank contacted the World Bank to resolve the case through mediation or arbitration. The World Bank willfully lied to them stating Management “had taken what they believed to be extraordinary measures to try to provide mediation or otherwise accommodate [Dr. Biru’s] concerns and {it does not have] interest in engaging further in settlement or mediation efforts.” 


This was an outright lie. There is a written and signed statement from the HR Vice President rejecting the Bank’s Appeals Committee’s “strong recommendation” to “immediately enter into a binding mediation.” When Dr. Biru provided hard evidence refuting the Bank's lies, management changed its story. The new story was that he was offered reassignment. The Bank claimed “He scorned the attempt to re-assign him when it was broached to him.” This, too, was an outright lie. 

The Bank’s claim was that the offer was given to Dr. Biru through the Bank’s Ombudsman. The Ombudsman rejected the claim as false, writing: “At no point did I have an offer to present to [Dr. Biru] from the Bank.”

The Bank’s HR Manager testified under oath on tape stating: (1) “I was contacted by the Ombudsman who said that Mr. Biru was interested in external services assignment”; (2) “No option for reassignment was ever presented to Mr. Biru”; and (3) “No reassignment opportunity was actually made available to him because there was none found”. The evidence did not stop the World Bank from willfully lying to the US Treasury and to the US Board of Director 

In 2018, World Bank Officials Willfully Lied to the US Department of State
When Approached to Resolve Dr. Biru's Disfranchisement and Defamation Claims

EXAMPLE 1:  In a written statement to the US Department of State, the World Bank falsely claimed Dr. Biru’s request is to re-litigate his racial discrimination and whistleblowing claims that has been reviewed and rejected by the World Bank Tribunal. As highlighted in Senator Chris Van Hollen's 73-Page Report, Dr. Biru outstanding cases are different.

Dr. Biru's outstanding cases that were filed with the Tribunal in 2013, 2014 and 2015 were his disenfranchisment and defamation claims. The Tribunal never reviewed the merits of the case. It refrained from reviewing the merits, conceding the Bank's jurisdictional challenge.

EXAMPLE 2: Another outstanding case is Dr. Biru's severance payment. When Dr. Biru was unlawfully terminated, he was denied severance payment citing the following article in Staff Rule 7.11 (Ending Employment [due to] Unsatisfactory Performance): “A staff member separated for reasons of unsatisfactory performance is not entitled to severance payments.”

The World Bank Tribunal rejected the Bank's claim of poor performance and found Dr. Biru’s termination "unlawful, capricious, an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process." The Tribunal instructed the World Bank to remove all references to poor performance. The World Bank is still withholding his severance payment.

In Louis de Merode, et al v. The World Bank (1981) the Tribunal ruled "The Bank cannot deprive staff members of accrued rights for services already rendered. This well-established principle has been applied in many judgments of other international administrative tribunals."  Dr. Biru’s severance payment is accrued over 18 years of service.

On May 17, 2018, the current HR Vice President (Osmane Diagana) wrote to Dr. Biru stating “I will try to get the background and story on the case then I or someone in my team will revert ASAP.”  President Kim blocked the HR vice president from reviewing the case. There is no reason to deny him of his severance payment other than malice and vengeance.

EXAMPLE 3: One of the false claims in the Banks fact sheet that was presented to US officials is the claim that Dr. Biru was accorded due process. To give credence to its false claim, the Bank claimed one of the judges was a reputable judge from Uganda. The fact is that the Ugandan judge is on the record stating Dr. Biru was denied due process. The Ugandan Judge who voted to summarily reject Dr. Biru's claim sent him an email message suggesting he did not agree with the judgment but still voted against him. He wrote: "I did not find it fit to dissent... I was not yet ready for such a momentous step."


As to the Bank's criminal disenfranchisment of Dr. Biru's performance record and the defamation of his character on its website, the Ugandan Judges' advice was the following. "Hope you can find peace and let bygones be bygones." The Judge added: "I have been in this business a long time and know what litigating against an employer does to the employee who sees his rights trampled without remedy."

This is a judge who was supposed to render justice without fear or favor. He endorsed the injustice against a racial victim and wrote to him stating he tried to give him hint to moderate his accusation of the World Bank during the Tribunal hearings. He wrote: "I hoped you would take the hint and moderate you attacks on the Bank to save your career, which honesty and unfortunately has led to your current situation and as you have said so greatly affected your family. I am deeply sorry for this." This is what the World Bank claims a reputable judge and defends the Tribunal's miscarriage of justice as "due process."

EXAMPLE 4: As the compelling evidence supporting Dr. Biru’s racial discrimination claim piled up, the World Bank used an African official from the African Development Bank to pose as a board member and testify against Dr. Biru. The African was promised the Global Manager position, if he testified (1) Dr. Biru was not qualified to become Global Manager, and (2) the African Development Bank will not work with him if he became Global Manager.

The African, who was not a Board member, was invited to attend a closed session Board meeting that was supposed to be attended by Principal Board members only. During the Board meeting, he defamed Dr. Biru and stated that the African Development Bank will not work with him if he was appointed as Global Manager.

After using the African's defamatory remarks to disqualify Dr. Biru, the World Bank awarded him the Global Manager Position. The World Bank turned around and told the US government racial discrimination did not exist because “the current global manager is from Africa.” (See also the "Criminal affirmative action" page on this site. 

The fact that (1) The African was not a Board member, (2) he attended and participated in a Principals only Board meeting, (3) he rejected Dr. Biru’s qualification for the Global Manager position, and (4) he was awarded the Global Manager position after he disqualified Dr. Biru are amply documented with hard evidence. But this did not stop the World Bank from willfully misleading the US government and posting the fake story on its website as "Fact Sheet." 

Contact us for a free estimate.