For survivors of gender-based violence, reporting a case is only one stage in the pursuit of justice.
What follows depends on whether investigations are conducted properly, evidence is preserved, medical documentation is available, case files move efficiently between institutions, prosecutors are able to act, and survivors receive the support required to remain engaged throughout the process.
Where these parts of the justice pathway do not connect, a survivor may enter the system without ever reaching an effective outcome.
Against this backdrop, we are engaging the Kano State Ministry of Justice today on the legal and institutional barriers affecting the investigation and prosecution of gender-based violence cases, the unfinished reform of Kano’s legal framework, and the need for stronger coordination across the institutions responsible for survivor protection and accountability.
The discussion draws directly from challenges encountered through our legal representation, survivor support and advocacy work, where delays, evidentiary gaps and fragmented institutional responses continue to affect the progression of cases.
Advancing an unfinished legal reform
A central part of today’s engagement is Kano’s legal framework for addressing violence against women and children.
For several years, our advocacy has focused on strengthening protections associated with the Violence Against Persons Prohibition framework. Key provisions have been harmonised into the Kano State Penal Code Amendment Bill 2021, but the legislative process remains unfinished.
The delay leaves an important reform agenda unresolved.
A stronger and more comprehensive legal framework can clarify offences, protections, institutional responsibilities and remedies available to survivors. It can also provide justice institutions with clearer legal tools for responding to forms of violence that are not adequately addressed under existing provisions.
The discussion therefore examines the importance of advancing the Bill while recognising that legislative reform alone cannot resolve the practical barriers survivors already encounter within the justice system.
The effectiveness of any law ultimately depends on the institutions responsible for applying it.
Examining where cases lose momentum
Today’s consultation looks closely at what happens after a case is reported.
A survivor may initially engage the police. Medical examination and documentation may follow. Evidence must be gathered and preserved. A case file may move from investigators to prosecutors before proceedings can begin.
Weakness at any of these stages can affect the viability of a case.
The discussion addresses delays between reporting, investigation and prosecution; evidentiary challenges; difficulties obtaining or coordinating medical documentation; gaps in communication between agencies; and the movement of case files across institutions.
These are not separate technical problems.
A delay in accessing medical care may affect evidence. An incomplete investigation can limit the options available to prosecutors. Weak communication between institutions can prolong proceedings or leave critical information unavailable when it is required.
Survivors often experience these institutional gaps directly, particularly where they are required to move repeatedly between agencies or personally follow up on the progress of their cases.
A justice system should not depend on a survivor’s ability to navigate administrative fragmentation in order for a case to proceed.
Strengthening the relationship between investigation and prosecution
The relationship between investigators and prosecutors is particularly important to effective case progression.
Police are responsible for investigating alleged offences and assembling evidence. Prosecutors must assess that evidence and determine how a case can be taken forward within the law.
Where investigation and prosecution operate without sufficient communication, weaknesses may only become apparent after significant time has passed.
Today’s discussion considers how stronger coordination between these functions can help identify evidentiary requirements earlier, reduce avoidable delays and improve the quality of cases entering the prosecution process.
This also requires effective links with health institutions where medical evidence or documentation is relevant, and with social welfare services where survivors—particularly children—require protection or support alongside the criminal process.
Justice delivery therefore depends not only on the performance of individual institutions, but also on the quality of the transitions between them.
Making the justice pathway more responsive to survivors
The engagement also examines what survivor-centred justice means in practice.
A survivor’s experience of the justice system is shaped not only by the eventual outcome of a case, but by what happens throughout the process: whether information is available, whether delays are explained, whether repeated interactions with institutions are handled with dignity, and whether appropriate legal, psychosocial and protection support remains accessible.
Long or fragmented processes can place significant pressure on survivors and families.
This is particularly consequential in cases involving children, where safeguarding concerns may continue while an investigation or prosecution is underway.
Strengthening survivor-centred justice therefore requires attention to both procedural effectiveness and the support systems surrounding the legal process.
The discussion considers the need for clearer communication with survivors, stronger links between justice institutions and support services, and greater institutional responsibility for ensuring that cases do not stall without explanation or follow-up.
Moving towards coordinated institutional accountability
A central issue emerging from today’s engagement is that many justice failures occur at the points where institutional mandates meet.
Police investigate. Health institutions provide treatment and documentation. Social welfare services address protection and support needs. Prosecutors pursue cases. Courts determine criminal responsibility.
A survivor may require all of these institutions, but no single one controls the entire pathway.
The discussion therefore advances the need for a multi-sector coordination and accountability framework for survivor protection, through which the institutions involved can clarify responsibilities, strengthen referral and information flow, and establish more consistent mechanisms for case follow-up.
This does not require institutions to assume one another’s mandates. It requires stronger accountability for what happens when responsibility passes from one institution to the next.
Legal reform and institutional reform must therefore advance together.
Completing the legislative process around the Kano State Penal Code Amendment Bill remains important. So does strengthening the justice pathway through which existing and future protections are implemented.
Today’s engagement places both issues within the same reform conversation: ensuring that Kano has stronger legal protections for women and children, and ensuring that the institutions responsible for enforcing those protections are able to work together effectively from reporting through investigation, prosecution and accountability.