Why Should a Deaf Person Have to Bring Accessibility With Them?

International Week of Deaf People 2026 - Day 4

September 24, 2026

I have been thinking about something that we don't always talk about when it comes to accessibility.

Sometimes, it seems like the Deaf person is always expected to bring accessibility with them.

A Deaf person wants to go to the hospital, and the question becomes, “Who is going to interpret for you?” They want to attend an event, and they have to find out whether someone will be available to interpret. They need to visit an office, communicate with a service provider or attend an important meeting, and somehow the responsibility of figuring out how communication will happen can end up on them. I think we need to pause there for a second.

Why is the person who needs access often the one expected to arrange the access? Please don’t say because he/she is the one who needs access now😒

That question is at the heart of what I have been thinking about for Day 4 of International Week of Deaf People 2026.

Today's official theme is “No Access Without National Sign Language (CRPD Article 9).” The World Federation of the Deaf describes accessibility for Deaf people as including access to public services and information through national sign languages and sign language interpretation. (World Federation of the Deaf)

And when you bring that conversation down from international organisations and human rights documents to everyday life, it becomes very simple.

Imagine you are a Deaf person and you need to see a doctor.

You know where the hospital is. You can get there yourself. You can register. You can sit down and wait for your turn. You can walk into the consultation room.

But then the doctor starts explaining something important and there is no way for both of you to communicate properly.

What happens next?

Do you postpone the appointment until you can find somebody to come with you? Do you ask a family member to interpret? Do you try to communicate through writing? Do you use your phone? Do you somehow manage with whatever little communication is available?

Now imagine having to repeat that experience in different parts of your life.

At a bank.

At a government office.

At work.

At an event.

At church.

During an emergency.

Even when dealing with a business that simply wants to serve you as a customer.

The issue is not that Deaf people cannot go to these places. They can.

The issue is whether they can access what everyone else is accessing when they get there.

And this is where I think we sometimes misunderstand accessibility.

Accessibility is not just about making it possible for someone to enter a place. It is also about making it possible for them to understand, communicate, receive information and participate when they get there.

Because what is the point of being invited somewhere if you cannot understand what is happening?

What is the point of having access to a service if communication makes it difficult to use that service?

What is the point of being physically present in a meeting if you cannot follow the conversation?

And what is the point of telling someone, “You are welcome here,” while leaving them to figure out how they are supposed to participate?

This is why sign language access is not some extra decoration that organisations can add when they remember.

It is part of access.

The WFD makes this connection clearly: for Deaf people, accessibility includes access to information and communication, healthcare, education, employment and other parts of society through national sign languages and professional interpretation. (World Federation of the Deaf)

And honestly, this is where I think the conversation needs to move beyond “Deaf people need interpreters.”

Yes, interpreters matter. Absolutely.

But the bigger question is: Why should accessibility begin only after a Deaf person asks for it?

If a hospital knows Deaf people use its services, shouldn't communication access be part of thinking about how that service is delivered?

If an organisation regularly hosts public events, shouldn't accessibility be something considered during planning rather than something remembered when a Deaf person announces that they are attending?

If a workplace employs Deaf people, shouldn't communication access be part of the workplace rather than something the employee has to keep requesting?

I'm not saying every situation is simple. I know there are practical challenges, especially in places where there are not enough qualified sign language interpreters or resources. But that is actually another reason the conversation needs to happen.

Because if we keep treating accessibility as something that is only necessary when a Deaf person shows up, we will always be reacting instead of building systems that include people from the beginning.

And I think Nigeria has a lot of room for this conversation.

We have Deaf people working, studying, running businesses, attending churches, going to hospitals, using banks, attending events, using technology and doing all the normal things that everybody else does.

They are not living in a separate world.

So accessibility should not be designed as though Deaf people are an unusual interruption to everyday life.

Deaf people are part of everyday life.

Maybe that means we need to stop asking, “How do we accommodate this Deaf person?”

And start asking, “How do we make this service accessible to the people who use it?”

That small change in thinking can make a big difference.

Because the goal should not be for a Deaf person to become exceptionally good at navigating inaccessible systems.

The goal should be to build systems that don't require people to fight their way through them just to participate.

And maybe this is what today's theme is really asking us to understand.

Accessibility should not be something a Deaf person has to carry with them. It should be something society builds into the places, services and conversations they are already part of.

That, to me, is what makes sign language access much bigger than learning a few signs.

It is about whether a Deaf person can walk into a place and know that they have a fair chance of being

 understood.

It is about whether they can receive information without having to bring someone along every time.

It is about whether participation is actually available to them, not just the invitation.

And ultimately, it is about dignity.

This is Day 4 of my International Week of Deaf People 2026 series.

Yesterday, I wrote about language as a human right.

Today, I am thinking about what happens when that right meets everyday life.

Because maybe the question isn't simply:

“Can the Deaf person access this place?”

Maybe the better question is:

“Can the Deaf person access what everyone else came here to access?”

And if the answer is no, then perhaps we need to rethink what we mean when we say something is accessible.