Women’s League calls for a national hostel safety protocol

The PDM Women’s League has called on the Government of Namibia and other responsible institutions to establish a national protocol for preventing, responding to and investigating sexual violence in hostels and other shared accommodation. The proposed standard would give residents, workers and families a clear route to protection wherever a hostel operates.

The demand follows growing concern that fragmented oversight can leave survivors dependent on the goodwill of individual managers or local security staff. Hostels may accommodate students, young workers, migrants and people temporarily without housing, often far from specialist gender-based violence services. A uniform protocol would reduce confusion at the moment when a person needs confidential help.

For PDM, this is a democratic and social-justice issue rather than a private administrative matter. Residents deserve equal protection regardless of an operator’s ownership, the length of a stay or their ability to pay. Transparent duties for hostel operators and public agencies would also allow the public to see whether complaints are being handled consistently, impartially and without retaliation.

The policy task is substantial because it must combine safeguarding with survivor choice, practical access to health and legal support, and accountability based on fair process. Australian cities offer useful comparative experience because their university districts, private rental market and backpacker accommodation create similar pressures, although legal arrangements and support services differ. Namibia can adapt effective practices without importing a model designed for a different country.

Why a national baseline matters

Responsibility for a hostel incident can be divided among a facility manager, security guards, municipal authorities, campus representatives, police and health workers. Without a national baseline, residents may encounter different reporting procedures, confidentiality standards and referral options from one facility to another. Gaps between these agencies can be exploited, particularly when the person making a complaint is unfamiliar with local services.

A national protocol should establish minimum standards for all operators of residential accommodation, including private hostels, student residences, worker dormitories, temporary housing and publicly owned facilities. It should address the circumstances in which complaints arise, not simply the use of force. Coercion, threats, sexual harassment, unwanted intimate images and abuse of power all require clear policies, appropriate responses and referral pathways.

Public concern about violence in shared accommodation has also appeared in reporting published by Garidaty Namibia. Wider visibility is valuable because victims of gender-based violence often remain unheard until repeated incidents receive public attention. A national response would move the issue from isolated cases and individual disputes toward a consistent system of prevention, support and accountability.

Minimum safeguards before an incident occurs

Safeguarding should begin with a published policy that every resident can access in a language they understand. Each hostel should identify a trained protection officer, explain how confidential concerns can be raised and provide current contact details for emergency, medical, legal and psychosocial support. Residents should receive this information when they arrive and again at regular intervals during their stay.

Facilities also need to address physical and operational risks. This may include appropriate lighting, secure entry points, locks on individual rooms, limits on unaccompanied visitors, procedures for alcohol-related incidents and safe arrangements for travel after dark. Staffing rosters, occupancy controls and transport for workers finishing late shifts can reduce danger without restricting residents’ freedom or creating discriminatory rules.

Training must go beyond telling staff to “handle complaints.” Security personnel, cleaners, reception workers and managers should know how to recognise coercive behaviour, respond without victim-blaming, preserve evidence and avoid promising absolute secrecy when disclosure may be required to protect someone. People working directly with residents should receive instruction in trauma-informed practice, disability access, cultural sensitivity and the consequences of unauthorised disclosure or retaliation.

Reporting routes shaped by survivor choice

A person affected by sexual violence should have several ways to report. These can include speaking directly to a designated officer, contacting an independent advocate, making a written or online submission, asking a trusted person to report on their behalf and seeking immediate assistance in an emergency. Anonymous reporting may be valuable in some circumstances, while survivors with safe access to communication should be able to choose the method that best preserves their agency.

Independent reporting channels are essential where residents work for, study at or depend upon the hostel operator. These channels should connect with appropriately trained counsellors, social workers, health professionals and legal advisers. Confidentiality and any limits to it must be explained clearly rather than used as a reason to refuse assistance. Language support, disability accommodations and accessible communication should be available throughout the process.

The protocol should never make police reporting, medical treatment or a formal complaint a condition of receiving support. Survivors may need protection, documents, transport, sick leave or compensation, and those needs should not depend on their decision about prosecution. At the same time, they should receive accurate information about evidence preservation, investigation procedures and the strengths and limitations of different legal options. Each step should be offered, not imposed.

Accountability after a complaint

Once a concern is raised, a written procedure should identify who will respond, what evidence may be preserved, how witnesses will be contacted and when the person reporting will receive an update. A temporary safety plan may be needed while an assessment is underway. Complaints about staff, contractors or senior managers should be investigated by someone outside the management line concerned. Fair process remains important, with the presumption of innocence and no public disclosure of identifying details.

The response must distinguish support for the affected person from findings of responsibility. A survivor who receives counselling or medical care should not have that support treated as evidence that an allegation is true. Similarly, an employer or hostel operator should not evade responsibility by claiming that every matter was handled informally. Record-keeping, supervision and review should make institutional decisions visible without exposing private information.

Oversight can involve an independent review body, an ombudsman-style office or a specialist unit with authority to inspect compliant facilities and investigate serious failures. Aggregate information on complaints, response times, outcomes and referrals would help the public assess performance. Safeguarding measures should be resourced properly, and confidentiality clauses must not prevent residents from reporting misconduct or contacting authorities. PDM’s official positions and public responses are available through its media statements archive, reflecting the transparency such a system would require.

Building a workable Namibian protocol

Developing the protocol should involve more than government departments drafting rules on paper. The process should include women’s organisations, survivors, hostel operators, student representatives, workers’ unions, health professionals, police, disability advocates and community groups. These participants can identify practical barriers that a uniform policy might otherwise overlook. Public consultation also helps establish legitimacy among the people expected to use and enforce the standard.

Implementation could begin with pilots in Windhoek and several regional centres, allowing agencies to test referral arrangements, after-hours coverage and the coordination needed between hostels and support services. A national directory should identify facilities able to offer temporary safety, crisis counselling, medical care and legal guidance. Where specialist services are unavailable, mobile outreach and funded training partnerships may be more realistic than expecting every municipality to maintain a full referral team.

The final protocol should have enforceable duties, a responsible lead institution and regular review dates. Licensing, procurement and public funding could be linked to compliance, while smaller operators may need financial and technical assistance to meet the standard. Measures of success should include faster access to support, improved reporting confidence, reduced retaliation and clearer accountability. This would ensure that a national framework remains useful in both major cities and smaller communities.

Lessons from the Australian accommodation market

Australian cities provide several practical comparisons. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane contain large university precincts where purpose-built student accommodation operates alongside private rentals, homestays, backpacker hostels, serviced apartments and shared houses. International students, exchange visitors and temporary workers may move between these forms of housing, creating the same need for consistent safety information and confidential assistance across operators.

Australia’s state and territory legal systems differ, but universities commonly maintain dedicated sexual assault support services and independent advocacy programmes. These services can provide a useful example of separating pastoral support from institutional decision-making, giving affected students access to a person who is not employed by the organisation being questioned. The Australian Human Rights Commission also provides broader guidance on equality, dignity and respectful relationships that can inform policy design.

Late-night travel and socialising in cities such as Melbourne and Sydney shape the local risk environment. Trams, buses, taxis and ride-share vehicles connect university areas with pubs, clubs and music venues, while people working in hospitality or cleaning often finish late. Australians in immediate danger can call 000, and the RANZCH Sexual Assault Support line, 1800 737 732, provides free, confidential assistance around the clock. Combining emergency transport with an independent support line offers a practical model for reducing isolation after an incident.

Australia also demonstrates the importance of avoiding a single national response for every community. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and people living in remote areas require appropriately funded, community-controlled and culturally safe support. The transferable principle is that residents should know where to seek help, receive an effective response and remain safe from retaliation wherever they live. Namibian hostel residents are entitled to that same certainty, and a national protocol provides the clearest way to make it a public duty rather than an uncertain promise.