In many communities across Kano, cases involving violence or abuse may become known to traditional leaders before they reach a police station, health facility, social welfare office or court.
Families approach traditional authorities for guidance and intervention. Complaints are brought before them. Disputes are referred to them. Their proximity to households means they can influence what happens at one of the most important points in the protection pathway: the period between disclosure and formal intervention.
That position carries both opportunity and responsibility. A traditional leader can help a family recognise that a survivor requires protection, encourage timely reporting and facilitate referral to the appropriate institution. But where serious violence is treated only as a matter for family reconciliation or informal settlement, a survivor may never reach the services or justice mechanisms required.
Against this backdrop, we are engaging traditional leaders in Kano today on strengthening community-level protection for women and children, improving referral to formal services, and clarifying the point at which community dispute-resolution mechanisms must give way to medical, safeguarding or criminal-justice intervention.
The discussion addresses a recurring challenge from our work with survivors: ensuring that the first authority approached after violence becomes known does not become the point at which a serious case stops.
Clarifying the limits of informal resolution
Traditional institutions perform important functions in mediation, dispute resolution and maintaining cohesion within communities. These roles are especially significant in places where traditional leaders remain among the most accessible and trusted sources of authority.
However, not every matter involving violence can appropriately be resolved through mediation.
Cases involving sexual violence, serious physical harm or abuse of children may require urgent medical attention, protection from further harm, preservation of evidence, investigation and prosecution. Social welfare institutions may also need to intervene where a survivor, particularly a child, remains at risk.
Today’s discussion therefore examines the distinction between disputes that can appropriately be addressed through community mechanisms and cases that trigger responsibilities beyond the community.
This distinction is particularly important where pressure to preserve family relationships, avoid stigma or maintain community harmony can influence decisions about reporting. Informal settlements may sometimes be pursued without sufficient consideration of survivor safety, the seriousness of the alleged offence or the possibility that other people may also be at risk.
Traditional leaders can help prevent this by recognising when mediation is no longer an adequate response and ensuring that cases requiring professional or statutory intervention are referred without unnecessary delay.
Protecting survivors at the point of disclosure
The response immediately following disclosure can shape the course of a case.
A child who reports abuse may depend entirely on adults to act. A survivor may face pressure from relatives or community members to remain silent. Families may be uncertain about where to seek help or concerned about the consequences of involving formal institutions.
Traditional leaders can play an important role at this stage by reinforcing that survivor safety must come first.
The engagement considers how community authority can be used to discourage intimidation or retaliation, support families in acting on disclosures, and help ensure that survivors are not returned to unsafe situations while decisions about further intervention are being made.
It also addresses the need to protect the integrity of subsequent processes. In cases involving sexual violence or serious abuse, actions taken immediately after disclosure can affect medical documentation, evidence and investigation. Early guidance should therefore support, rather than compromise, the work of the institutions that may later become involved.
Strengthening referral from communities to formal services
Referral is another central part of today’s discussion.
A traditional leader may recognise that a matter requires intervention beyond the community, but effective protection depends on knowing where the case should go next.
A survivor may need healthcare, social welfare support, police intervention, legal assistance or a combination of services. Where these pathways are unclear, families can move between institutions without knowing who is responsible for the next stage of response.
The engagement examines the need for stronger links between traditional structures and the health, social welfare, security and justice institutions responsible for survivor protection.
This includes improving understanding of when urgent medical attention is required, where child-protection concerns should be referred, when security agencies must become involved and how survivors can be connected with legal and psychosocial support.
Traditional leaders are not expected to perform the functions of these institutions. Their role is to help ensure that survivors reach them when those functions are required.
Clearer referral relationships can reduce delays, prevent serious cases from disappearing into informal processes and create a more reliable pathway from community-level disclosure to formal protection.
Connecting community authority with accountability
Our work with survivors continues to show that protection can fail at the point where community structures and formal institutions meet.
A case may be known within a community but never reported. A child-protection concern may be identified without referral. A survivor may be encouraged to accept an informal settlement despite continuing safety risks. In other cases, families may genuinely want help but lack clear information about which institution should respond.
Today’s engagement brings these gaps into direct discussion with traditional leaders whose authority can influence what happens at precisely these points.
Three priorities emerge from the conversation: clearer distinction between matters suitable for community mediation and those requiring statutory intervention; stronger referral pathways from traditional structures to formal services; and greater protection for survivors from pressure, intimidation or concealment after disclosure.
Traditional leadership has an important place within Kano’s wider protection system because of its proximity to families and communities. The objective is not to transform traditional institutions into justice agencies, but to strengthen their role as responsible entry points into protection.
Where violence first becomes known should not determine whether justice is possible.
The priority is to ensure that community authority helps move survivors towards the protection, support and accountability they require.