"The Biru Case leaves bare the Bank's longstanding corporate lie that attributes

the paucity of blacks  in management ranks to the absence of qualified candidates."  

~ Reverend Jesse Jackson, Open Letter to President Obama (2015)

"The claim that Yonas 'had no management responsibility' represents an

outright lieTo state it in any other way would minimize the seriousness of

the crime, considering that the false statement was administered under oath."

~ Dr. Sultan Ahmad, Biru's Former Supervisor, World Bank, Testimonial (2014)

Shaida Badiee (Iranian National)

Biru's case is the third case that she has been accused of discrimination by as many staff.

She liberally lied under oath during the Peer Review Panel proceedings. During the Tribunal hearing she admitted under oath that her sworn testimonies during the Peer Review Panel hearing were "not true". During the Tribunal hearing she lied under oath once again going as far as falsifying Biru's personnel record. Click Here to compare her contradictory testimonies.

During the Tribunal hearing, the President of the Tribunal asked her to respond to the

racial discrimination claim against her. Her reply was: "I'm not sort of a European blonde. I'm a woman from the Middle East. How could I discriminate against somebody else?" 

Misha Belkindas (Lithuanian National)

He lied openly under oath in every area of contention. During the Appeals Committee hearing he testified under oath stating "The Bank had no hand in appointing Global Manager. The decision to appoint Global manager lied with an external Board." He went on to testify that "Ms. Badiee advocated for Biru take over the Global Manager Position, but the external Board rejected her appeal."

During the Tribunal hearing he testified under oath stating: "There was nothing to advocate for before the External Board... Filling the Global Manager position is exclusively the prerogative of the Bank. The external Board had no relevance with the impugned administrative decisions.” 

Once again the Tribunal willfully allowed another institutional witness to lie under oath. 

Hasan Tuluy (Turkish National)

HR Vice President

He received a report from the Peer Review Panel noting that what was done to Biru could not be explained by business reasons. The Panel issued a strong recommendation that the Bank enter into "a binding mediation immediately." Tuluy rejected the recommendation and wrote to Biru: "Dear Mr. Biru, Your appeal is hereby denied. If you are dissatisfied the next step would be recourse to the Tribunal."

During the Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal asked the Bank  why it failed to implement the Peer Review's recommendations. The Bank lied: "We tried, but Applicant scorned it when it was broached to him." Apart from the above quoted letter signed by Tuluy, the Tribunal was in possession of evidence from one of the HR managers and the Bank's Ombudsman who rejected the Bank's lies stating that nothing was broached to Biru.


The Tribunal not only allowed the Bank to use perjured evidence, but also blamed Biru for scorning the Bank's "gesture." 

Justin Yifu Lin (Chinese National)

Senior Vice President and Chief Economist

He terminated Biru using false pretext. One of the justifications Lin used to terminate Biru was that he failed to submit a report before the deadline. This was an outright lie. Biru produced email evidence that he had submitted the report in time. He also provided hard copy evidence showing that he submitted the report before the deadline.


Using false evidence to terminate staff is a serious misconduct. The Tribunal ignored Lin's disgraceful lies to protect him from accountability that entails administrative sanction.  The Tribunal found Biru's termination "unlawful" but spared Lin from personal accountability by suppressing material evidence that showed he lied.

Jim Yong Kim (Korean American)


Kim's action personifies the common saying that the cover up is worse than the crime. Since 2014, he launched a cover-up campaign on two fronts. 


Internally, he rolled out an aggressive affirmative action that has become known as “affirmative action on steroid.” He increased the number of African Vice Presidents (VPs) from 3 to 10 in just two and a half years. When he is asked about Biru's case, he changes the topic to the number of African VP the Bank has. What he does not talk about is that he had to terminate five white women VPs to create room for African VPs. 

Externally, he used his close friendship with Obama and the Clintons to stop the DC Civil Rights Coalition and the Congressional Black Caucus from rallying behind Biru's cause. 

Yvonne Tsikata (Ghanaian National)



President Kim's former Chief of Staff, Current VP


Kim used Africans to lobby civil rights leaders. Tsikata wrote to the DC Civil Rights Coalition stating "The Picture presented by some former staffers is not the vibrantly diverse World Bank Group where I proudly work." She called Reverend Jackson's office to urge them to drop Biru's case from their agenda, suggesting that Biru had a fair hearing before the Tribunal.  

She was also the person who ultimately denied Biru his severance payment that he had accrued. When Biru wrote to Kim, Tsikata sent an email to the HR vice president, requesting him to send Biru “a final email” that the Bank “will not be responding further on this [issue].” Within minutes she realized that she had inadvertently copied Biru. She “recalled” her email in a futile attempt to officially withdraw the damaging evidence.

David Rivero, Mexican American



Director, Legal Department and Chief Counsel

Rivero, along with his Nigerian Senior Counsel defended the Bank using perjured evidence. For example, knowing full well that Biru was Deputy Global Manager in charge of the Bank's international comparison program in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa for many years he filed a signed document to the Tribunal falsely claiming that Biru "had no management responsibility … To be sure, he has been asked to help during spikes in work assignments as a team member and to foster teamwork competency in him...."

Moreover, in the Bank's brazen and shameful Post Hearing Briefs, Rivero insisted that the Tribunal should ignore the Ombudsman, the Bank's HR Manager and the Bank's Official documents and render its judgment based on the perjured evidence that he submitted to the Tribunal under the oath of law.

For example he wrote: "[The Bank] went the extra mile and offered to subsidize internal or external opportunities that may be identified by the applicant, but he was not amenable to those options.”  This, after both the Ombudsman and the Bank's HR manager testified under oath that the Bank's claim was false.


Several claimants have accused Rivero of using "falsified documents." He has been reported to the DC BAR by a former World Bank staff "for serious breaches of Rule 3.4 of the DC Bar Rules of Professional Conduct" after he allegedly used a perjured document.

In 2003: The US Senate Appropriations Committee expressed concern "with the professionalism of the Bank’s legal department."

Contact us for a free estimate.