Safeguarding is often misunderstood as a reactive process that only begins after abuse, exploitation, or violence has already occurred. But true safeguarding starts much earlier. It begins with the systems we build, the boundaries we respect, the information we protect, and the environments we intentionally create to ensure that every person can participate safely, fully, and with dignity.

This critical conversation took center stage during Day One of the ongoing advocacy engagement training themed:

“Empowering OPD Advocates through Advocacy Engagement and Inclusive Development Training (Third Contact)”

The training convened Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPD) leaders, advocates, and partners for strategic engagement on:

• inclusive advocacy,
• safeguarding,
• ethical participation,
• disability rights,
• and strengthening systems for meaningful community impact.

The training is organised by JONAPWD in collaboration with Inclusive Friends Association (IFA), with support from CBM Global Disability Inclusion and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.

At the heart of the engagement was an insightful safeguarding session facilitated by Adedotun Esan, Executive Director of the Mental Health with Ditty Foundation, who challenged participants to rethink safeguarding not as paperwork or compliance, but as a collective culture of protection, dignity, accountability, and prevention.

Safeguarding Is Everybody’s Responsibility

One of the strongest messages from the session was simple but profound:

“Safeguarding systems are essential to building safe, inclusive, and accountable spaces for everyone, especially persons with disabilities.”

Safeguarding was described as the measures individuals, organisations, and society put in place to ensure environments remain free from:

• abuse,
• exploitation,
• violence,
• neglect,
• coercion,
• discrimination,
• and harm.

Importantly, safeguarding is not reserved for HR units, project officers, or management teams alone.

It is everybody’s business.

Whether someone is:

• a staff member,
• advocate,
• caregiver,
• participant,
• volunteer,
• vendor,
• or visitor,

they all deserve protection and also share responsibility for creating safer spaces.

This understanding shifts safeguarding away from being a document stored in organizational folders into a living culture practiced daily.

Prevention Must Come Before Protection

A major insight from the session was the distinction between prevention and protection.

Many institutions focus heavily on responding after harm occurs. Yet safeguarding fundamentally prioritizes preventing abuse before it happens.

Participants established that safeguarding involves:

“Preventing harm, protecting people from abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence in all settings.”

Protection mechanisms become necessary after incidents occur:

• preserving confidentiality,
• ensuring safety,
• protecting survivors from retaliation,
• and restoring dignity.

But prevention requires organizations and advocates to ask difficult questions early:

• Are warning signs being ignored?
• Are reporting systems accessible?
• Are participants informed of their rights?
• Are boundaries respected?
• Are power imbalances being monitored?
• Are safeguarding concerns taken seriously the first time they appear?

The facilitator emphasized that many people wait for proof before speaking up, but safeguarding requires earlier action.

“When you feel it, please say something. It is our responsibility.”

Participants were reminded that advocates are not investigators. Their responsibility is to identify concerns, report them appropriately, and allow safeguarding systems to function before situations escalate.

Consent Is Not Absolute

One of the most intellectually engaging discussions centered around consent, autonomy, and ethical participation.

Adedotun Esan emphasized a statement that deeply resonated with participants:

“Consent is not absolute. I can decide to say no; I can withdraw consent in the next 10 minutes.”

This challenged the common assumption that once consent is given, it becomes permanent or unconditional.

The session carefully unpacked the difference between permission and informed consent.

Permission may allow temporary access or approval.

Consent, however, requires:

• understanding,
• transparency,
• context,
• voluntary agreement,
• and the ability to withdraw at any point.

Participants explored real-life examples around:

• taking photographs,
• recording testimonies,
• using personal data,
• posting images online,
• and collecting participant information.

The facilitator explained that many people technically “agree” to things without fully understanding:

• how their information will be used,
• who will access it,
• what risks may emerge,
• or whether they can later withdraw consent.

This is especially critical within advocacy and development spaces where organizations frequently collect stories, photos, videos, and sensitive personal information.

The session reinforced that ethical engagement requires far more than signatures on forms. It requires continuous respect for autonomy and informed decision-making.

The Thin Line Between Permission and Consent

A particularly thought-provoking conversation emerged around the distinction between permission and consent.

Participants reflected on scenarios where someone may allow a photograph to be taken but may not consent to its publication online.

As one participant explained:

“Consent needs to come with informed decision-making.”

This means individuals must understand:

• what is happening,
• why it is happening,
• where their information will appear,
• what potential risks exist,
• and how long that information may remain accessible.

The session stressed that organizations must stop treating consent as vague or one-dimensional.

Consent must be:

• informed,
• explicit,
• detailed,
• contextual,
• and voluntary.

Participants were also reminded that people should never feel pressured into consenting due to power dynamics, fear, dependency, or unequal relationships.

Exploitation Against Persons with Disabilities Often Happens Quietly

One of the most sobering moments of the training came when participants reflected on the hidden exploitation many persons with disabilities face daily.

In the facilitator’s words:

“There’s a lot of exploitation happening around persons with disabilities in our homes, communities, and workplaces.”

The discussion exposed how stigma, dependency, discrimination, poverty, and inaccessible systems increase vulnerability to abuse.

Participants examined real examples involving:

• financial exploitation by caregivers,
• emotional abuse,
• neglect,
• manipulation,
• sexual abuse,
• and control over opportunities or mobility.

A powerful example was shared involving a blind participant whose caregiver had been collecting benefits meant for him while falsely presenting himself as a supportive family member.

The exploitation only came to light because there was:

• a safeguarding process,
• confidential reporting channels,
• and advocates willing to listen carefully.

Without those systems, the abuse could have continued indefinitely.

Accessibility Is Central to Safeguarding

The session also highlighted a frequently ignored issue:

An inaccessible safeguarding system is not a safeguarding system.

Many organizations claim to have reporting mechanisms, but participants were challenged to ask:

• Can persons with disabilities actually access these systems independently?
• Can deaf persons report safely?
• Can blind persons access information confidentially?
• What happens when the abuser is also the caregiver or interpreter?
• What happens when power dynamics silence reporting?

Participants discussed how inaccessible systems often force survivors to depend on the very people causing harm.

This creates dangerous cycles of silence and vulnerability.

Safeguarding therefore requires:

• accessible communication,
• confidential reporting systems,
• disability-inclusive procedures,
• safe participation structures,
• and accountability mechanisms.

Accessibility is not an “extra feature” of safeguarding. It is foundational to it.

Boundaries Are a Form of Protection

Another deeply practical aspect of the session focused on boundaries.

Participants explored scenarios involving:

• inappropriate workplace behaviour,
• uncomfortable interactions,
• unwanted advances,
• unsafe environments,
• and abuse of authority.

The facilitator emphasized that boundaries are not hostility or aggression.

They are protection.

“Build boundaries around yourself.”

Participants were encouraged to:

• avoid unsafe environments,
• communicate discomfort clearly,
• ensure trusted people know their whereabouts,
• avoid isolated unsafe interactions,
• and prioritize personal safety without guilt.

The session also highlighted how power dynamics complicate safeguarding concerns, especially where the person causing discomfort is:

• a superior,
• teacher,
• employer,
• caregiver,
• or gatekeeper to opportunities.

This reinforced the need for organizational safeguarding structures that go beyond individual survival strategies.

Ethical Principles Must Guide Every Interaction

The training further explored core ethical principles that must guide safeguarding and advocacy work.

These included:

Dignity

Every person deserves respect regardless of ability or circumstance.

Participants reflected on how true dignity means:

• being seen,
• heard,
• respected,
• and included meaningfully.

“People want to be seen, people want to be heard, people want to participate.”

Respect

Respect means recognizing that individuals have:

• different values,
• beliefs,
• choices,
• and identities.

It requires allowing people autonomy over their lives and decisions as long as no harm is caused to others.

Autonomy

Participants emphasized that people should have the right to make informed decisions about their own lives.

But autonomy depends heavily on access to information.

“People can only make decisions as much as the information they have.”

This reinforced why transparency is essential.

Do No Harm

The facilitator stressed that harm is not only physical.

Emotional, psychological, social, and verbal harm can have lifelong consequences.

Repeated negative messaging, exclusion, humiliation, and discrimination can profoundly shape a person’s self-worth and mental wellbeing.

Confidentiality

Participants also explored the growing importance of privacy and data protection in a digital age where personal information is increasingly vulnerable.

The discussion highlighted concerns around:

• data misuse,
• identity theft,
• hacked accounts,
• cloned voices,
• unauthorized images,
• and oversharing on social media.

The facilitator warned that safeguarding now extends deeply into digital spaces, requiring organizations and individuals to become far more intentional about protecting personal data.

Inclusion Must Go Beyond Representation

Another key takeaway from the training was the need to rethink inclusion itself.

Inclusion is not simply allowing persons with disabilities into a room.

True inclusion means ensuring individuals can:

• participate fully,
• contribute meaningfully,
• communicate effectively,
• and access reasonable accommodations.

As emphasized during the session:

“Inclusion does not just mean being in the room. Inclusion is being able to participate fully and contribute fully, with reasonable accommodation taken care of.”

Safeguarding and inclusion are therefore inseparable.

An environment that excludes people structurally also exposes them to greater vulnerability and marginalization.

Safeguarding Is a Human Rights Obligation

Ultimately, the training reinforced one central truth:

Safeguarding is not charity.
It is not public relations.
It is not organizational branding.

Safeguarding is a human rights obligation.

It is about protecting:

• dignity,
• safety,
• autonomy,
• privacy,
• inclusion,
• and freedom from abuse.

The session challenged participants to move beyond conversations and begin building systems rooted in accountability, accessibility, and ethical responsibility.

Because safeguarding is not simply a policy document.

It is the daily practice of ensuring that every person, especially persons with disabilities, can participate, contribute, and thrive in safety and dignity.