When Wolfowitz got caught giving a pay rise to his girlfriend, it was a big embarrassment to the organisation he heads. The worst thing is that at the same time he was doing it, he was trying to promote transparency and a drive against corruption, and trying to eliminate nepotism within the World Bank.

Wolfowitz has always been a man of controversy, both before and after joining the bank. He has many friends around the world. He is an old Indonesia hand, having served as the US ambassador there in the late 1980s. Since he assumed his World Bank post in 2005 he has done lots of good things for developing countries, especially Indonesia and those in Africa. He has provided funds for development projects in these countries, which explains why they are reluctant to see him go.

Of course, as long as Wolfowitz still has the confidence of US President George W Bush, he intends to stay. Among World Bank members, however, there are differences. Some think it is too harsh a reaction to force a capable person like him quit; others feel that he can no longer properly represent the prestigious institution he was appointed to serve. Whichever point of view carries more weight, it is probably already too late to save him.

Wolfowitz was a controversial figure even prior to joining the World Bank. At the Pentagon he was deputy to former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He was one of the architects of the case for a war on Iraq. As part of the neo-conservative leadership, he believed that an Iraq in possession of weapons of mass destruction would be detrimental to the Middle East and international peace and security and that the US needed to end this menace. Look at what has happened since. Four years after the invasion of Iraq and the topping of its leader Saddam Hussein, US and allied troops are still fighting to quell internal conflict there.

So no wonder that when Wolfowitz was appointed to the World Bank, he arrived with a strong conviction of the supremacy of US foreign policy. He was not reluctant to mix politics with aid disbursal. At one point he suspended aid to Uzbekistan after the Central Asian country denied landing rights to American military aircraft. On the other hand, he has facilitated aid flows to countries that are supportive of US foreign policy objectives.

Wolfowitz's willingness to be the front man of US foreign policy probably raised fears among World Bank staffers. If he stays on at the institution, he will continue to be influenced by the diplomacy set in Washington. The bank's staff remember too well what Wolfowitz tried to do in the early days immediately following his appointment. He immediately wanted to enlarge the bank's role in Iraq despite security concerns. As such, if he stays on, he will remain a liability to the World Bank because he will continue to be blunt.

However, there is a line of thought among the bank's board members that a weakened Wolfowitz would make a better governor if he were allowed to stay. Before the scandal, the bank president was paying no heed to any other voices and had his own mind when it came to crucial decisions.

Of course, he will be missed by the African countries that benefited from his liberal aid policies. But in the end, a high-profile president whose reputation has been tarnished will find it difficult to recover. With his ability, Wolfowitz could certainly find another job within the Bush administration.