By Bosede Ola-Samuel
There are steps to take if we will help the abused in a marriage. We have been able to establish the fact that the abused is in a precarious situation needing intervention. Many times, this intervention does not come early enough for the abused. Hence, the damage has usually been done, before the intervention comes. This needs not to be so. We can salvage the situation of the abused by being proactive about the abusive marriage.
Who Should Intervene
There are about three levels of interventions in an abusive marriage that I would like to discuss here. They are self-intervention, other people’s intervention, and societal intervention.
Before we discuss the above-mentioned levels of interventions, let me draw our attention to one of the major factors why the incident or situation of an abusive marriage thrives. This is the ‘Mind your business’ attitude in our society. We have been cowed into believing that one must avoid being a meddlesome interloper. This has impacted negatively on the response of many people in an abusive marriage. We often hear sayings like “What is my own there,” “It’s none of my business,” and “What concerns me about it.” What a wicked stand to take about a situation that has devastating effects on fellow humans. We need to repent in this wise to be able to meaningfully intervene in an abusive marriage.
This posture of mind your business is also one of the weapons of the abusers. You hear them say, from time to time, to anyone trying to intervene, “What concerns you about my family? After all, she is my wife.” This is intended to prevent any intervention from others. But we must resist such a posture. It can no longer be business as usual for the abuser. We must no longer submit to this blackmail of the abuser. This is why a marriage can move from the level of separate living to legal divorce.
I have come to realise that the easiest way to keep at bay a violently unreasonable spouse is to legally terminate the marriage. Otherwise, we will keep having the troublesome spouse living in the delusion of the ownership mentality. Dissolution of the marriage checkmates the troublesome spouse and thus puts a restraint on his or her excesses to harass a spouse. This is why the court usually makes orders forbidding a spouse from being seen within the neighbourhood of his or her ex-spouse.
Self-Intervention
This is about an abused spouse taking steps that will help her or him to be delivered from the abusive marriage. This is possible when the abused is still able to reason correctly or in the right frame of mind to draw the attention of others to her or his precarious situation in the marriage. This is why you see her or him making signs to draw attention to her or his situation − making distressed calls to neighbours, throwing objects through the window to nearby compounds, screaming when alone in the house, exposing written notes on the body to others, outrightly running away from the house, etc. All these help the abused to receive intervention from others who are sensitive enough to decode the signs.
The abused should realise that the easiest way to freedom from an abusive marriage is to speak out. It is a risk that is worth the effort. Otherwise, she or he will suffer for a long time, if he or she does not die in the situation. The abused should know that all the harassment, intimidation, and control are intended to keep her or him from seeking help. So, she or he must be courageous to seek help, despite the associated risks.
Other People’s Intervention
These include neighbours, co-tenants, siblings, parents, friends, and colleagues at work (where the abused is still allowed to work). These are people who should be able to easily identify an abusive marriage. The neighbourhood persons are really in a position to know something is not right about a marriage, given all the traits mentioned in the first write-up on abusive marriage. They see regularly and are in a position to observe what goes on in the neighbourhood. This is why we must be encouraged to jettison the ‘Mind your business’ attitude and embrace being your ‘Brother’s keeper’ assertion. Observed abusive traits should be reported to others in the neighbourhood, residents’ association’s leadership, or even law enforcement agencies. We must be properly enlightened to act, and fast too, in such situations.
Siblings, parents, friends and work colleagues must also be properly enlightened to show interest in the situations of one another, including marriage. We need to understand that it is highly necessary to be intentional in showing interest in the affairs of one another. The situation of ‘me and my husband’ should rather raise our curiosity, than deter us, from showing more than passive interest in such marriages. I think we have lost enough people to the non-intervention of others in such marriages. It is time to let the abused breathe through our intervention.
Societal Intervention
This covers a whole range of societal institutions, both governmental and non-governmental. They include marriage registries, legislative institutions, law enforcement agencies, religious bodies, professional bodies, old student associations, non-governmental societies on human rights abuse, etc. They must be strengthened and encouraged to support their members in all matters of life, including marriage. The government should be proactive in reviewing our laws to strengthen them to deal with abuses in the marriage institution.
Abusive marriage requires more than paying lip service or showing passive interest. It is a monster that needs to be tamed. So, let us all rise to the occasion and do the needful to end or reduce to the barest minimum the incident of the abusive marriage.
You raise an important and emotionally urgent conversation about intervention in abusive marriages, particularly the dangerous consequences of silence, passivity, and societal indifference. The article correctly identifies how abuse often thrives within cultures of secrecy, shame, fear, and social withdrawal, where victims are isolated while communities normalize non-interference under the banner of “mind your business.”
What resonates most with me is the recognition that abuse is rarely a purely private issue. Once harm, coercion, fear, intimidation, and violence enter a relationship, the consequences extend beyond two individuals. Families, children, workplaces, communities, and entire social systems become affected. Silence then stops being neutrality and begins functioning as complicity.
At the same time, I think this conversation requires careful nuance, particularly regarding how intervention itself is understood.
Not all intervention is automatically safe, ethical, or empowering for victims. In many abusive relationships, control already exists at psychological, emotional, financial, social, spiritual, and physical levels. Victims may already be navigating surveillance, threats, dependency, fear of retaliation, immigration vulnerabilities, religious pressures, economic instability, or concern for children. As a result, simplistic calls to “just leave” or “just speak up” can unintentionally underestimate the complexity and danger surrounding abusive situations.
This is where I think the article opens an important door for deeper reflection.
Many societies, including ours, have historically normalized certain forms of control within marriage under the language of culture, discipline, endurance, submission, respectability, or family preservation. In some cases, people are conditioned to see suffering as virtue and silence as maturity. Women especially are often socialized to prioritize maintaining the institution of marriage even at the expense of their emotional, psychological, or physical safety.
What concerns me deeply is how institutions sometimes reinforce this silence. Religious spaces, extended families, cultural systems, and even legal structures may unintentionally pressure victims toward endurance rather than protection. Victims are sometimes told to pray harder, be more patient, avoid embarrassment, protect the family image, or submit more fully, while the abusive dynamics themselves remain insufficiently addressed.
The article is correct that societal intervention matters. But intervention must move beyond reactive sympathy after tragedy occurs. It must involve building systems that genuinely protect vulnerable people before situations escalate.
That includes:
accessible shelters,
mental health support,
economic empowerment,
legal protections,
community education,
trauma-informed counseling,
responsive law enforcement,
and support systems that do not stigmatize victims for leaving harmful environments.
I also appreciate the challenge to the “mind your business” mentality. However, intervention should not become community surveillance or moral policing. It should center safety, dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, and informed support for the abused person.
Most importantly, I think we need to rethink how society defines strength within marriage.
Too often, endurance is celebrated more than safety.
Silence is praised more than honesty.
Preserving appearances becomes more important than preserving lives.
Healthy relationships should not require people to disappear psychologically in order to survive socially.
Ultimately, abusive marriages are not sustained merely by individual abusers. They are also sustained by systems of silence, normalized power imbalances, institutional failures, and cultural narratives that make it difficult for victims to seek help safely.
The real challenge before society is not simply encouraging intervention.
It is creating conditions where people can seek help without fear, shame, punishment, or isolation.