Empowerment and trainings

A detailed reflection on the gaps participants identified, the ideas put forward for further development and the beginning of the care-plan design process at the co-designing workshop Project Ajosepo Ilera ati Asa | Think Positive Live Positive Support Initiative (TPLPI)27 August 2026 | Wave Academy, Yaba, Lagos When the incident is over, the aftermath is not For many queer people, “kito” is not just a word. It is a word that can carry fear, humiliation, violence, financial loss, outing, blackmail and the feeling that a situation that looked ordinary can suddenly become dangerous. A person can think they are going to meet someone, discuss a job, pursue a relationship, handle a business matter or simply connect with another person. Then, without warning, the situation changes. The immediate danger may eventually end. But that does not mean the survivor is automatically okay. Sometimes the phone that was taken is gone, but the fear of receiving an unknown call remains. The money stolen may be replaceable, but the disruption to school, rent, work or daily life may not be easy to repair. A person may leave the location where they were harmed and still carry the incident with them through nightmares, sudden triggers, shame, distrust or anxiety. This is the part of the conversation that often receives less attention: what happens after survival? For readers unfamiliar with the term, KITO is used here to describe situations in which someone is lured or entrapped and then subjected to violence, extortion, robbery or threats of exposure because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. On Thursday, 27 August 2026, Think Positive Live Positive Support Initiative (TPLPI), through Project Ajosepo Ilera ati Asa, brought together community organisations, mental health and psychosocial support providers, human rights actors, government representatives, independent advocates, survivors and TPLPI staff at Wave Academy, Yaba, Lagos. The purpose was not simply to talk about KITO. It was to sit together and begin co-designing a practical, survivor-centred post-incident care plan, one that recognises that survivors need more than an emergency response. A photo of participants gathered in the hall Creating a room where people could speak The first step was creating the kind of room in which difficult conversations could happen. Participants introduced themselves using their names or preferred names, organisational affiliations and pronouns where applicable. The room brought together different kinds of experience: community workers, advocates, service providers, institutional actors and people with lived experience of KITO. The workshop was grounded in TPLPI’s previous research with KITO survivors and people who support affected community members. The notes record that approximately 45 survivors and stakeholders or service providers were engaged in the research, which explored the psychological, social, economic and other consequences of KITO incidents. One of the recommendations from that work was the development of a community post-incident care plan. The research therefore became a starting point for the room. This connected the research to the task of co-design: considering what those findings meant for the support a survivor should be able to receive. Participants were asked to think about the human realities behind the findings the ways an ordinary interaction can become an incident of entrapment, violence, extortion or exposure, and what that can do to a person long after the incident itself.  One of the clearest messages from the workshop was that KITO does not create just one problem. A survivor may need several kinds of help at the same time. These experiences show why KITO cannot be treated only as an isolated criminal or security incident. Post-incident care has to meet the survivor where they are. Availability is not the same as safety The discussion made one thing clear: availability is not the same as accessibility, and accessibility is not the same as safety. Being LGBTQI+ inclusive cannot simply exist in a policy document. It has to be visible in everyday interactions in the language providers use, how they protect confidentiality, how they respond to survivors and, most importantly, whether people feel safe enough to come back. facilitator presenting research For some, there is the additional danger of being outed whether their sexual orientation, gender identity or health information is exposed. And outing can have consequences of its own. It can lead to family rejection, religious pressure, forced “deliverance”, attempts at conversion-related practices, loss of housing, displacement or serious safety concerns. The effects can also reach work, school, relationships and everyday functioning.   The discussion also made one thing clear: availability is not the same as accessibility, and accessibility is not the same as safety. Being LGBTQI+ inclusive cannot simply exist in a policy document. It has to be visible in everyday interactions in the language providers use, how they protect confidentiality, how they respond to survivors and, most importantly, whether people feel safe enough to come back. That is why the idea of “just get counselling” is not enough. A survivor may need therapy, but they may also need transport, emergency accommodation, medical care, legal support, financial assistance, help recovering documents, livelihood support or someone they trust to stay with them while they figure out what comes next. The stories in the room made the gaps impossible to ignore The workshop also made space for lived experiences. One survivor described experiencing KITO on three different occasions. The third incident, which happened while he was in his final year at school, was particularly serious. He had travelled to Lagos to meet someone he believed was a lawyer. The situation became an organised robbery and assault in which his money and belongings were taken, including resources connected to his education. He attempted to seek redress through the police and also approached his bank, but the responses he received did not provide the support he needed. Because he depended on his parents and could not safely explain the circumstances, he felt he had no one with whom he could fully share what had happened. The same survivor also described a separate experience in which police officers searched