…WIMSAL Must Go Beyond Statements
The launch of WIMSAL’s new safeguarding policy is welcome, but as a graduate with a bachelor’s degree in mass communication from Fourah Bay College and a woman working in Sierra Leone’s media space, I am left asking a more uncomfortable question: what exactly does “action” mean if we are unwilling to confront the people who exercise power over women before they even enter the newsroom?
The 2025 WAN-IFRA Women in News, BBC Media Action and City St George’s University of London study provides disturbing evidence of sexual harassment in Sierra Leone’s media sector, with 54 percent of women surveyed reporting verbal sexual harassment and 57 percent reporting online harassment.
WIMSAL President Eastina Taylor was right when she said, “let us move from listening to action.” But action cannot stop at another policy, another dialogue, another signed charter and another photograph of stakeholders around a conference table. WIMSAL’s own new principles say that “no person shall be shielded by rank, ownership, influence or professional standing” and that institutions must provide accessible and confidential reporting channels (womeninnews.org).
The obvious test, therefore, is whether these principles will be applied where power is perhaps most unequal: classrooms, lecture rooms and media training institutions, where female students can be dependent on lecturers for grades, recommendations, graduation and access to professional opportunities.
The Problem Starts Before the Newsroom
There is already enough evidence to demand that this conversation be widened. In 2022, Milton Margai Technical University confirmed that an investigation had found several lecturers guilty of sexual harassment against female students, with the university announcing that those found culpable would be dismissed. The Anti-Corruption Commission’s subsequent systems review of MMTU records also documented a disciplinary investigation into allegations involving sexual harassment of female students, alongside allegations concerning grades and undue advantages (politicosl.com).
These are not allegations that should be casually generalised to all lecturers, nor should anyone be branded guilty without due process. But they demonstrate that abuse of academic authority is not an imaginary problem. Other research involving Sierra Leonean medical students has also recorded concerns that female students who rejected sexual advances from lecturers could face difficulties passing examinations, illustrating how fear of academic retaliation can silence students even where formal complaints mechanisms exist (PMC).
More recently, Fourah Bay College confirmed that it opened an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and corruption made by a student against a part-time lecturer, while reiterating its zero-tolerance position (Sierra Loaded). If this can happen in higher education, why should the media profession assume that its training institutions are somehow immune?
In my next article, I will work with other female victims and colleague journalists to explain cases being documented against certain lecturers who are journalists and hold powerful positions, without naming names to avoid litigation. However, working with some non-journalist human rights lawyers, we will transcribe accounts of some students and others who have now graduated and work in different media houses, with contexts that explain the extent of the damage these ordeals have caused them.
So, I ask again. Where is the systematic research into female journalism and mass-communication students who say they are propositioned, intimidated, threatened with academic consequences, pressured for sexual relationships, or otherwise made to understand that compliance may determine their grades or professional future? If such evidence exists, it needs to be documented, independently investigated and, where wrongdoing is established, exposed through appropriate institutional and legal processes. Silence protects neither students nor the reputation of legitimate educators.
SLAJ and WIMSAL Must Look Further
This is where WIMSAL and the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) should be challenged. Their responsibility cannot begin when a woman receives a newsroom appointment and end with media-house safeguarding policies. The pipeline into journalism matters. A young woman who is sexually harassed, intimidated or allegedly coerced during training enters the profession carrying the consequences of that experience, often with a powerful lecturer or gatekeeper still connected to the industry.
WIMSAL has demonstrated that it can take serious cases beyond the headlines: its involvement in the ECOWAS Court petition concerning journalist Umu Thoronka showed a willingness to confront allegations of sexual harassment, intimidation and gender discrimination at a major media institution (truthmedia.sl).
The question now is whether that same resolve extends to the quieter spaces where young women may have less power, less money, fewer connections and almost no confidence that speaking out will not cost them their education. SLAJ has likewise called for tougher measures and stronger accountability following the BBC Media Action findings (Sierra Loaded).
Good. Then let both organisations help answer the questions that the new charter itself creates: Who receives a student’s complaint? Who protects her from retaliation? Who investigates a lecturer with influence over her grades? What happens when the alleged perpetrator is senior, politically connected or professionally respected? And who publishes the outcome when an allegation is substantiated?
The answer cannot simply be another workshop. If WIMSAL truly wants to move from “listening to action,” it should commission an independent safeguarding assessment of journalism and media-training institutions, establish a confidential reporting pathway for students, work with schools and regulators on enforceable protections, and publicly report on cases and outcomes without compromising survivors’ confidentiality or due process.
The media industry cannot credibly demand accountability from politicians, businesses and public institutions while refusing to examine the power structures that shape its own future journalists. If the new safeguarding charter means what it says, its first serious test should be the protection of the young women who are still trying to become journalists.
