Ghana has joined the global community to mark the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. As expected, the period was marked by speeches, campaigns, public education, and renewed conversations about the dangers women and girls face in their homes, workplaces, and communities. This year’s discussions rightly expanded to include violence in digital spaces, an increasingly pervasive but often overlooked threat. Yet, beyond the symbolism of activism lies a sobering truth: Ghana’s primary state mechanism for supporting survivors of domestic violence, the Domestic Violence Fund, remains chronically underfunded and unable to fulfil its mandate.
Since its establishment under the Domestic Violence Act of 2007, the Fund is expected to provide essential services, including medical support, psychosocial care, shelter, and legal assistance for survivors of domestic violence. However, almost two decades later, the Fund has struggled to move beyond paper commitment. Allocations have been erratic and insufficient. Year after year, survivors are left to depend on struggling NGOs and charity rather than a guaranteed state-backed support system.
This situation is deeply worrying. Domestic violence is not a marginal social issue; it is a public health, human rights, and development concern. The Ghana Statistical Service and multiple studies have shown the increasing prevalence of intimate partner violence and abuse against women and girls. The psychosocial and economic cost of this violence is enormous, including lost productivity, long-term health complications, childhood trauma, broken homes, and generational poverty. The cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of prevention and response.
Ghana’s Commitment to Fight Abuse Against Women and Girls
If Ghana is truly committed to protecting the rights, dignity, and safety of women and girls, then funding cannot remain symbolic. The Domestic Violence Fund should not be treated as a discretionary charity account. It must be a central instrument of national protection and social justice. Increased allocations are needed to support three urgent areas:
First, adequate and sustainable funding for crisis shelters and safe homes. Currently, Ghana has no known properly resourced shelters, an alarming situation for a country with lots of recorded cases annually. A well-established private shelter that continues to operate under severe financial constraints is the facility managed by the Ark Foundation. Every region should have at least one safe and functioning shelter for women and children fleeing abuse. This would represent a genuine demonstration of commitment to combating abuse against women and girls.
Second, investment in survivor services, including trauma counselling, legal aid, medical support, and reintegration. Survivors need comprehensive recovery pathways, not temporary relief. They require steadfast support to help them navigate their ordeal and overcome it.
Third, funding for prevention and community education. Violence thrives where silence prevails. Effective public education, especially at the community level, is necessary to shift attitudes and break cycles of abuse.
The government’s commitments under international conventions such as CEDAW and the Sustainable Development Goals demand more than policy statements; they require financing. Parliament must prioritize increased budgetary allocation and ensure that funds are released in a timely and transparent manner. The private sector, philanthropists, and international partners must also be encouraged to support the Fund, but not as primary financiers, rather as supplementary actors to a state-led response.
Conclusion
This year’s 16 Days of Activism must not end with hashtags and high-level talks. It must spark renewed action on the Domestic Violence Fund. The Fund must be strengthened to deliver tangible protection for survivors. Ghana cannot continue to declare “zero tolerance” for domestic violence while the very support systems meant to respond to victims are left to struggle for survival. Increasing funding must not merely be a policy choice but a moral imperative. Women and girls deserve a system that protects them, not one that fails them.
