The May 18 resignation of Paul Wolfowitz, former World Bank President, has left many in Africa with the feeling that decades of World Bank calls for better governance on the continent may simply have been the pot calling the kettle black. Wolfowitz resigned on Thursday after a scandal over a highly paid raise set aside for his female partner.

Reuters reported on Friday that there is “widespread” indignation in Africa at the apparent hypocrisy of the World Bank and its figureheads, who have long “lectured” African leaders on the demerits of cronyism and corruption in government. Dick Musisi Mpiima, Chairman of the Uganda Exporters, Importers and Traders Association, asked, “How can you be lecturing Africa about corruption while you’re using World Bank money to give your girlfriend a pay rise?”

“The way Wolfowitz negotiated a pay rise for his girlfriend is exactly the same as the way in which President Deby has embezzled oil revenues,” said Ngarlegy Yorongar, a leader of the opposition against Chadian president Idriss Deby. Wolfowitz temporarily halted funding to Chad in 2006 when it became apparent that Deby was attempting to garner personal revenue from an oil pipeline project built with World Bank funding.

Others have pointed out that because America is the largest supplier of capital to the Bank, it has generally chosen its chiefs. Yet, “we are important stakeholders because we borrow money from the bank and we must, therefore, have a say in its matters,” Zambia’s Information Minister Mike Mlongoti told Reuters.

Still others are sad to see Wolfowitz go. “In Wolfowitz, the bank has lost a man who loved Africa,” Esther Passaris, a Nairobi-based businesswoman, told Reuters.

The World Bank’s credibility was dealt a great blow by Wolfowitz’s “foot-dragging exit,” particularly in the places where its anti-corruption efforts were most active. It is facing an extreme public relations crisis. Yet, we at the IIJD see an opportunity for the World Bank to regain face and to perhaps enhance the efficacy of its good governance campaigns in Africa.

The first step for the World Bank is to issue an apology. The second step is to open leadership positions to nationals of those countries that borrow from it, not just those that donate to it, in order to make the system representative. This will enhance the credibility of the institution beyond the level at which it was before the Wolfowitz resignation.

The timing could not be better to make such a change in the leadership of the Bank. Though this step is necessary regardless, it will appear, during this crisis in its image, as a good faith effort to make the Bank more accountable to its members.

All international institutions should ensure that power is shared, at least to a degree, between the countries that comprise it. This sharing should reflect as little as possible the differing levels of power of the countries in the international sphere, but rather what is necessary for the institution to function as effectively and legitimately as possible. The World Bank now has a chance to solve a public relations problem by instituting such changes. We at the IIJD think that the course of action, in this case, is clear.