Extraordinary Council Meeting Censures Welfare Officer and President Over Controversial Campaign

In an unprecedented move, Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union Council passed two motions of censure during an extraordinary sitting on April 10th, formally condemning both the Welfare and Equality Officer, Hamza Bana, and President Jenny Maguire for their respective roles in a controversial direct action campaign targeting sexual and gender-based violence.

The emergency Council session, held in the Joly Theatre, was called in response to events that unfolded the previous week, during which effigies with the word “rapist” written on them were hung from campus buildings, including the Arts Block, the Hamilton, and outside the Office of the Junior Dean. The campaign, while described by some organisers as survivor-led and designed to provoke public reckoning with Trinity’s handling of sexual violence, was criticised by others for its execution, for causing psychological harm, and for bypassing internal checks and oversight within the Union.

The atmosphere in the chamber was emotionally charged as speakers engaged in intense debate over the appropriate balance between direct action, survivor advocacy, and procedural accountability.

Motion of Censure: Hamza Bana

The first motion addressed the role of Hamza Bana, Welfare and Equality Officer, in the planning and execution of the campaign. The motion was proposed by Class Rep Pól Ó hÍomhair and seconded by Imogen Forrest and Seán Thim O’Leary, all of whom also spoke during the meeting in support of the motion. Proposers of the motion cited a series of serious concerns, including the use of anonymous testimonies without verified consent, the exclusion of the Gender Equality Officer from planning discussions, and the overall lack of coordination with Union Forum structures.

Speakers emphasised the gravity of the harm caused to students, particularly those with lived experience of sexual trauma. One student, whose story had initially inspired aspects of the campaign, offered a searing critique: “The more I thought about it, the more I didn’t like it. Hamza said to me himself, the campaign was meant to be controversial and shocking, and seeing the only existing effort to change the fucked up system I endured, intentionally invoking backlash, is a horrible feeling and something that Hamza should reasonably have foreseen.”

Another contributor argued, “We should not allow the welfare officer to use other people’s trauma as rage bait… to give survivors false hope that something will change.”

However, some speakers defended Bana’s intentions, highlighting the campaign’s roots in survivor experience. “Survivors have a right to feel anger towards their abusers,” one said. “This campaign was made for survivors by survivors. I want that to be clear.”

Despite concerns raised about the lack of a preceding Oversight Commission investigation, typically a procedural step before censure, the motion passed. Supporters justified the urgency by citing the lateness in term and the severity of the situation. “It’s an emergency council for a goddamn reason… when you actively try and hide things from people, you need to be reprimanded for that,” one speaker said.

Motion of Censure: Jenny Maguire

The second motion targeted TCDSU President Jenny Maguire. While Maguire was not directly involved in the physical staging of the campaign, proposers argued that as the Union’s chief officer, she bore ultimate responsibility for the failures in process, oversight, and communication. Also proposed by Class Rep Pól Ó hÍomhair and seconded by Imogen Forrest and Seán Thim O’Leary, the motion was supported during the debate by a range of student representatives citing harm to survivors and breaches of Union process.

“In choosing to take this action, the President has broken my trust and the trust of countless vulnerable students,” said one class representative. “Seeing these bodies all over Instagram and the news… I have been forced to relive memories I thought I had resolved. The harm you have done is not nebulous or anonymous—it is standing right in front of you.”

Maguire’s defenders pointed to her absence due to illness. One speaker noted, “Jenny was sick all of last week… she was not actively involved in the action that took place.” Maguire herself addressed this directly: “There are so many things I don’t go to, I wasn’t the only party part of the organising of it, campaigns are made up of multiple people… I was sick, I had a doctor’s note to be out until today… So I wasn’t here and I wasn’t the one who was head of the campaign, so it didn’t make sense to postpone it.”

Yet questions of accountability persisted. In a particularly notable moment, the Gender Equality Officer addressed Council directly, revealing that Maguire had acknowledged in a private conversation that excluding her from the campaign had been a mistake. “Jenny told me herself … that it was a mistake not to tell me about the campaign.”

This moment resonated for many in the room, reinforcing concerns that the campaign had been launched without regard for constitutional obligations or the role of officers tasked with safeguarding gender-based issues. “In absence of an officer that's a part of this, and then the campaign is carried out, that seems like an oversight to me,” one student noted.

Despite calls for an Oversight Commission investigation, and objections to what some described as a lack of due process, the motion of censure passed. As one speaker summarised, “We need individual accountability… because we as a body did not have a sufficient quantity of say in the outcome of this campaign.”

Broader Reflections

Throughout the evening, students raised wider concerns about how the Union had handled the campaign, and how it might recover. The discussion repeatedly returned to the importance of safeguarding survivors, respecting internal structures, and ensuring meaningful inclusion of relevant officers in campaign planning.

A motion to establish an Ad-Hoc Working Group on Campaigning Against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence was also debated, with the intention of creating a formal structure to guide future activism. This motion was proposed by Seán Thim O’Leary and seconded by Pól Ó hÍomhair and Imogen Forrest. While the proposal drew some support as a constructive response to recent events, the motion was ultimately denied.

Instead, it was suggested that a revised version of the proposal be developed over the summer, with the aim of bringing it forward as one of the first items on the agenda when Council resumes in September. The working group, in its updated form, is expected to focus on improving procedural integrity, ensuring survivor welfare, and restoring trust in Union-led campaigning.

“This episode is absolutely endemic of everything that is wrong with the Union,” said one class rep. “The Union that seems at times more focused on shock than delivering service for its members.”

For many, the meeting marked a breaking point, but perhaps also an inflection point. As Council adjourned, there was a sense that while damage had been done, students were not willing to leave the conversation there. Whether the Union can rebuild credibility—and whether more accountable structures can be established—remains to be seen in the term ahead.