Fourah Bay College (USL)
By Ishmail Saidu Kanu
A recent Gender and Power Analysis (GPA) Study has adduced gripping empirical evidence pointing to systemic Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) risks within tertiary education institutions in Sierra Leone.
The findings disclose that such risks are not incidental or isolated in nature but are structurally embedded within entrenched gender inequalities, institutional hierarchies, and the exercise of unchecked discretionary authority within academic environments.
The study was conducted across ten tertiary institutions nationwide using a mixed-methods research design comprising quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
These included a sample survey of 3,562 students, seventy focus group discussions involving 840 participants, and one hundred and twenty-two key informant interviews with institutional leadership, academic staff, and administrative personnel.
The study expressly clarifies that it does not purport to establish criminal liability or determine evidentiary thresholds for prosecution, but rather to interrogate governance structures, institutional accountability mechanisms, and systemic vulnerabilities that facilitate the occurrence and persistence of SGBV.
On the basis of the evidence obtained, the study establishes that SGBV risk is structurally produced and sustained by gendered power relations within tertiary institutions.
A significant proportion of respondents reported exposure to gender-based unequal treatment, with 77% indicating such experiences within the relevant period, while 75% attributed the prevalence of SGBV to systemic gender inequality at a moderate to high level.
The findings further indicate that female students are disproportionately exposed to vulnerability, particularly in relation to harassment, intimidation, discriminatory treatment, and constrained access to academic opportunities.
These vulnerabilities are exacerbated within residential settings and institutional disciplinary environments where regulatory control is more pronounced.
A central legal concern arising from the study relates to the concentration of administrative discretion within academic gatekeeping structures.
Decision-making authority over admissions, academic assessment, accommodation allocation, scholarship opportunities, and graduation clearance is shown to rest within a framework that lacks sufficient transparency and oversight.
The study finds that such concentration of power creates conditions conducive to abuse of authority, coercion, and transactional exploitation, thereby raising serious issues of maladministration, conflict of interest, and breach of institutional duty of care.
The study further reveals substantial compliance deficits in relation to institutional safeguarding obligations. Only 10% of students demonstrated awareness of existing SGBV policies, while 93% reported that they had never received formal institutional training or sensitisation on SGBV prevention and response.
This shows a major failure in policy dissemination and institutional due diligence, thereby undermining the effectiveness and operationalization of safeguarding frameworks within tertiary institutions.
With respect to reporting and redress mechanisms, the study finds that existing systems are predominantly informal, hierarchical, and dependent on individual discretion, thereby compromising procedural fairness, confidentiality, and access to justice.
Approximately 66% of respondents indicated that they did not know where or to whom to report SGBV cases, while 69% expressed a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of reporting processes.
These findings suggest a systemic deterrence to disclosure and a consequential erosion of trust in institutional accountability mechanisms.
The study also identifies critical deficiencies in survivor support infrastructure.
A huge majority of students reported unawareness of any campus-based support services, while existing interventions were largely limited to grievance handling and quasi-legal processes.
There is a pronounced absence of comprehensive psychosocial support, legal aid services, emergency shelter provisions, and economic reintegration mechanisms.
The study further points that students with disabilities face heightened barriers in accessing available services, thereby raising additional concerns regarding inclusivity and equality of access.
Although student associations were identified as widely trusted informal support structures with high levels of participation, their role remains largely confined to peer support and informal mediation.
They lack formal recognition within institutional governance frameworks and therefore do not possess the mandate or capacity to drive structural reform or enforce accountability mechanisms.
In conclusion, the study determines that Sexual and Gender-Based Violence within tertiary institutions in Sierra Leone is sustained by systemic discrimination, institutional inertia, weak accountability frameworks, and deficiencies in duty-of-care obligations.
The prevailing institutional response is characterised as reactive, fragmented, and largely compliance-oriented, with an undue burden placed on students rather than on institutional actors charged with safeguarding responsibilities.
The study therefore underscores the urgent need for structural reforms aimed at strengthening independent reporting mechanisms, augmenting survivor-centred support systems, and embedding preventive safeguarding obligations as a core institutional duty, failing which there is a continuing risk of rights violations and governance failure within the tertiary education sector.
