Reporting SGBV Without Causing More Harm: What Nigerian Journalists Need to Know

Inside the Abuja training challenging journalists to move from sensational coverage to survivor-centred, evidence-based and accountability journalism

FEATURE 

By Uangbaoje Alex

Every sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) story has two potential outcomes.

It can inform the public, expose perpetrators, challenge harmful beliefs, connect survivors to support and pressure institutions to act.

Or it can expose a survivor, reinforce stigma, spread misinformation, retraumatise a victim and even make it harder for other survivors to seek help.

That was the central concern of the Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Media Corps Workshop held in Abuja, where Nigerian journalists were challenged to rethink not only what they report, but how, why and with what consequences they report it.

Organised by the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) with support from the European Union-funded Support to End Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (ESGBV) Programme, implemented by International IDEA, the workshop brought together media practitioners for intensive sessions on SGBV prevention, ethical reporting, victim rights, confidentiality, informed consent, responsible language, visual ethics, technology-facilitated SGBV and Nigeria’s legal and regulatory framework.

The training also culminated in the inauguration of the SGBV Media Corps, established to promote awareness of the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, strengthen reporting on technology-facilitated SGBV, increase public awareness of survivor referral pathways and improve collaboration among journalists, government agencies and civil society organisations.

But beyond the formation of a media network, the training raised a more fundamental question:

What should responsible SGBV journalism look like in Nigeria?

Understanding the problem before reporting it

Sexual and gender-based violence is not limited to rape or physical assault.

The training presented SGBV as violence directed at a person because of gender and rooted in unequal power relations.

It can include physical and sexual violence, domestic violence, harmful traditional practices, forced or early marriage, psychological abuse, coercion, intimidation, trafficking and economic or structural violence.

Increasingly, violence is also occurring through technology.

Technology-facilitated SGBV (TF-SGBV) can include sextortion, cyber-stalking, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, doxxing, online harassment and AI-generated sexual deepfakes.

This matters for journalists because each form of violence requires careful reporting.

A reporter who understands only the physical dimensions of SGBV may fail to recognise the harm caused when an intimate image is circulated without consent, or when an online campaign is used to threaten, humiliate or silence a survivor.

The numbers behind the silence

The workshop placed the media’s responsibility against a disturbing backdrop.

Data presented during the training according to the NDHS 2024, indicated that 21 per cent of women aged 15–49 have experienced physical or sexual violence, while a substantial proportion of survivors remain silent.

One of the data presentations indicated that 58 per cent of affected women never sought help or told anyone, while others sought help from friends, neighbours, religious or traditional leaders and other informal sources.

The Womanity Index 2025 data also presented during the training indicated that 59 per cent of Nigerians had either experienced gender-based violence themselves or knew someone who had.

Domestic or intimate-partner violence was identified as the most common form, accounting for 51 per cent, followed by physical and sexual violence.

The figures demonstrate why public communication matters.

If survivors do not know where to seek help, if communities normalise violence and if people do not understand the laws protecting survivors, journalism has an important role in filling those information gaps.

But the media cannot do that effectively if its reporting drives survivors further into silence.

The first rule: Do no harm

Dr. Lauratu Abdulsalam, SGBV Media Corps Mentor, placed the principle of “Do No Harm” at the centre of ethical reporting.

It means that a journalist must consider the potential consequences of a story before, during and after publication.

Will publication expose the survivor to retaliation?

Could the person’s identity be discovered?

Could the report cause family or community stigma?

Could it interfere with access to justice?

Could the interview force the survivor to relive traumatic experiences unnecessarily?

These questions should become part of the reporting process.

The training stressed that confidential information includes not only names and photographs, but also locations, schools, workplaces, family details, medical information and any combination of seemingly harmless facts that could identify a survivor.

In the digital age, this protection must extend to headlines, photographs, social-media teasers, videos and comments.

A face is not the only identity

This was reinforced by Armsfree Ajanaku, SGBV Media Corps Mentor, during the session on Responsible Language, Framing and Survivor-Centred Visual Ethics.

His message was particularly important for journalists working in multimedia environments:

Protecting a survivor’s identity means more than hiding the face.

A journalist may blur a survivor’s face but reveal the school uniform.

A camera may avoid the survivor but show the house.

A report may remove the name but identify the community, workplace and age.

A video may conceal the face but leave the voice intact.

Each can defeat the purpose of confidentiality.

Ajanaku therefore encouraged the use of symbolic and contextual imagery, including objects, silhouettes, closed doors, empty spaces, support services, courtrooms and data visualisations where appropriate.

Graphic photographs of violence and stereotypical stock images that dramatise trauma were discouraged.

The objective is not to make the story less powerful.

It is to ensure that the power of the story comes from the facts, not from exploiting someone’s suffering.

Change the language, change the frame

One of the most practical lessons was about headlines.

Journalists were challenged to examine language that subtly shifts responsibility from perpetrators to survivors.

A report should not focus on why a survivor was outside, what she wore, whether she rejected someone’s advances or what her relationship history was when those details are irrelevant to the crime.

Instead, the reporting should identify the alleged perpetrator’s conduct and provide the relevant legal and social context.

The difference may appear small, but framing determines how audiences understand responsibility.

The training therefore urged journalists to replace victim-blaming language with language that promotes perpetrator accountability and survivor agency.

It also encouraged reporters to connect individual incidents to wider issues, impunity, inadequate services, harmful social norms, institutional failures and gaps in implementation of laws.

That is how an individual case becomes a public-interest story.

Consent is not a signature

Another important lesson was that interviewing a survivor is not the same as obtaining meaningful consent.

The training presented four requirements for valid informed consent:

Voluntary. Informed. Specific. Revocable.

A survivor must be free to decide without pressure.

The person must understand how the material will be used.

Consent for one medium does not automatically mean consent for every platform.

And, where applicable, consent can be withdrawn before publication or broadcast.

This is particularly relevant now that a single interview can be republished across newspapers, television, radio, websites and social media.

For children, additional safeguards are required.

The training emphasised that minors require special protection and that journalists must avoid identification or exploitation of children in SGBV stories.

Victimisation can have multiple layers

Vincent Adekoye, Head, Press and Public Relations Unit, NAPTIP, brought victimology into the conversation.

Participants were introduced to primary, secondary and tertiary victimisation.

The primary victim experiences the direct impact of the crime.

Secondary victims may include parents, spouses, children or friends who are indirectly affected.

Communities and institutions can experience tertiary effects.

But perhaps the most important lesson for journalists was the concept of secondary victimisation.

A survivor who has already experienced violence may encounter further harm through insensitive questioning, institutional treatment, public stigma or irresponsible reporting.

Victimisation can affect physical health, psychological wellbeing, family relationships, social participation and economic stability.

A journalist therefore needs to understand that the person sitting across the microphone is not simply a source.

The person may be dealing with trauma, fear, shame, financial difficulty, social isolation and concerns about personal safety.

That requires a different approach to interviewing.

The media has power and responsibility

Dr. Tim Aniebonam, another SGBV Media Corps Mentor, focused on the strategic role of journalism in prevention and response.

The media is often described as the Fourth Estate because of its ability to inform the public, shape opinion and hold institutions accountable.

In SGBV reporting, that influence can be used to challenge harmful norms.

Journalists can educate communities about consent and survivor rights.

They can expose institutional failures.

They can amplify credible survivor perspectives without exposing identities.

They can investigate why cases collapse.

They can monitor court proceedings.

They can report whether survivors receive services.

They can question why laws are not being implemented.

And they can tell stories that demonstrate positive behaviour and prevention.

Aniebonam’s RUSH framework; Responsibility, Urgency, Sensitivity and Hope, provided a way of thinking about sustained SGBV journalism.

The underlying message was that journalists should not treat SGBV as a story that ends when the first report is published.

Follow the story.

From breaking news to accountability

This is perhaps one of the most important changes the training proposes.

Traditional news values often reward immediacy: something happened, the journalist reports it and the newsroom moves on.

But SGBV requires persistence.

What happened after the police report?

Was an investigation conducted?

Was anyone charged?

Did the case reach court?

Was justice delivered?

Did the survivor receive medical and psychosocial support?

What happened to the institution where the violence occurred?

Did policies change?

These are questions that transform journalism from incident reporting into accountability reporting.

They also prevent SGBV from becoming a cycle of dramatic headlines with no follow-through.

Knowing the law protects both survivor and journalist

Toyin Adewale-Gabriel, Lead Facilitator and Media Mentor, addressed the Nigerian regulatory framework governing SGBV reporting.

Journalists were taken through the relevance of the VAPP Act, Child Rights Act, Cybercrimes Act and Nigeria Data Protection Act, alongside professional obligations under the Nigeria Press Council Code of Ethics and NBC Broadcasting Code.

The principles include privacy, accuracy, fairness, human dignity, non-discrimination, protection of minors and avoidance of sensationalism.

For newsrooms, the implication is significant.

Ethical SGBV reporting should not depend solely on whether an individual reporter is personally sensitive to the issue.

It should become newsroom policy.

Editors should have clear procedures for handling survivor interviews, photographs, anonymous sources, minors, digital evidence and social-media allegations.

When technology becomes another weapon

The emergence of TF-SGBV makes that responsibility even more urgent.

A journalist can become part of the problem by publishing leaked intimate images, repeating unverified online allegations or directing audiences to harmful material.

The training encouraged journalists instead to explain the nature of the abuse, investigate perpetrators, examine platform accountability, educate audiences and provide information about reporting and support mechanisms.

The principle is simple:

Report the abuse without reproducing it.

That distinction will become increasingly important as artificial intelligence makes the creation and distribution of fabricated sexual content easier.

The journalist as a bridge to help

The ESGBV programme overview presented by Wynyfred Achu-Egbuson, Civil Society and Community Mobilization Specialist, ESGBV Programme, International IDEA, placed the media within a much larger response system.

The programme’s survivor-centred approach includes strengthening legal and policy frameworks, expanding essential services, strengthening Sexual Assault Referral Centres and shelters, improving legal aid and referral systems, and working with government, civil society, women’s groups, traditional and religious leaders, communities and media actors.

This means a journalist’s responsibility does not necessarily end with publication.

A well-reported story can tell a survivor where to seek help.

It can explain how referral systems work.

It can educate families and communities.

It can make government agencies answer questions.

It can draw attention to gaps in services.

In that sense, the media can become a bridge between people experiencing violence and the systems established to support them.

The journalists were not passive participants

The value of the training was also reflected in the reactions of participating journalists.

Participants said the sessions broadened their knowledge and strengthened their capacity to report SGBV more effectively.

One journalist said the training had provided practical knowledge that would help them navigate the restrictions and challenges reporters encounter when gathering information.

Another specifically praised the participatory methodology, noting that facilitators intentionally engaged participants who had not spoken and created opportunities for everyone to contribute.

The approach, the participant observed, made learning more effective because journalists were not simply listening—they were actively participating.

Another journalist said the programme had increased their motivation to pursue stories around gender issues, particularly those affecting women and children.

A participant who focused on disability issues said the training had improved their understanding of the challenges persons with disabilities face in seeking justice and strengthened their resolve to report their experiences more effectively.

Participants also commended the learning environment and the opportunity to meet other journalists working on similar issues.

But they identified one limitation: two days were not enough.

Some called for future editions to last four days or a full week, saying the additional time would allow more practical exercises, deeper discussion and greater exchange of experiences among journalists.

That feedback is important because the workshop did not simply deliver information.

It revealed the size of the knowledge and practice gap journalists are being asked to fill.

Why the Media Corps matters

The inauguration of the SGBV Media Corps provides an opportunity to turn the lessons from the workshop into continuing practice.

The Corps is intended to promote awareness of the VAPP Act, strengthen reporting on TF-SGBV, increase awareness of referral pathways and improve cooperation between media practitioners, government institutions and civil society.

But its greatest potential may be its ability to create a community of practice.

Journalists covering SGBV can share information.

They can exchange story ideas.

They can identify referral resources.

They can learn from one another’s experiences.

They can challenge harmful newsroom practices.

They can collectively raise the standard of SGBV journalism.

And because the initiative is built around coordination, it can potentially strengthen the connection between what journalists report and the services available to survivors.

What success should look like

The success of the training should not be measured by the number of journalists who attended or certificates issued.

It should be visible in the newsroom.

It should appear in headlines that no longer blame survivors.

In photographs that protect identities.

In interviews conducted with meaningful consent.

In stories that explain laws and referral pathways.

In investigations that track perpetrators and institutional failures.

In follow-up reports that ask what happened after the first headline.

In journalists who understand that a child involved in an SGBV case is not content.

In coverage of technology-facilitated violence that informs without reproducing the abuse.

And in communities that increasingly understand that SGBV is not a private matter to be hidden, but a violation that demands prevention, protection, justice and accountability.

The training’s most important lesson, therefore, may be this:

Journalism does not merely describe society. It helps shape how society understands violence.

If Nigerian journalists consistently choose accuracy over speculation, accountability over victim-blaming, dignity over sensationalism and solutions over spectacle, SGBV reporting can become more than a record of suffering.

It can become an instrument for prevention.

It can help survivors find support.

It can make institutions answerable.

It can challenge the norms that allow violence to persist.

And ultimately, it can help create a media environment in which telling the story of SGBV does not create another victim but helps ensure that the violence is neither normalised nor forgotten.