There is a looming constitutional crisis and an atrocious legal battle unfolding in The Gambia, where the fate of the country’s prohibition of female genital mutilation (FGM) now stands before the courts, hanging on the judicial balance. The roots of this dispute can be traced to 2015, when the Gambian legislature enacted the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2015, a landmark statutory reform that expressly criminalized the practice. The Act established a stringent penal framework targeting individuals who perform, aid, or facilitate FGM, prescribing sanctions that include fines or imprisonment for up to three years, and life imprisonment where the procedure results in death.

This controversial constitutional conundrum in the Gambia is forcing the nation and human rights advocates worldwide to confront enduring tensions between cultural identity and the protection of fundamental rights. At the heart of the dispute are efforts by some religious leaders and a Member of Parliament to overturn the ban on FGM, a practice that disproportionately affects children and has serious health and human rights consequences. A coalition led by MP Almameh Gibba has challenged the 2015 prohibition in the Gambian Supreme Court, claiming that criminalization violates constitutional guarantees of cultural and religious freedom. The central argument of this blog is that the legal challenge to the FGM ban threatens to undermine hard-won protections for women and girls by prioritizing claims of cultural and religious freedom over the fundamental human rights to health, dignity, and bodily integrity.

Recent surveys show that approximately 73% of Gambian women aged 15–49 have undergone FGM, often in early childhood, despite overwhelming evidence that the practice causes serious physical and psychological harm. FGM confers no medical benefit and is categorized by global health authorities as a harmful practice that jeopardizes physical and psychological well-being. Within this context, the ongoing Supreme Court challenge transcends abstract debates over religious or cultural prerogatives; it poses a fundamental legal test of the state’s duty to uphold the rights to life, bodily integrity, and human dignity, especially with respect to minors who are most at risk. As the United Nations and UNICEF have noted, thousands of Gambian women and girls have experienced the practice, which can result in long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences and is widely recognized as a form of violence against women and girls.

Despite the enactment of the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2015 (supra), enforcement remained largely dormant for several years, with few recorded prosecutions. The situation shifted in 2023 when three women were convicted for performing female genital mutilation on eight young girls, the first significant criminal convictions under the law. These prosecutions triggered intense backlash from segments of religious and traditional leaders who perceived the enforcement of the ban as an intrusion into long-standing cultural and religious practices. In response, a constitutional challenge was initiated before the Supreme Court of The Gambia, with opponents arguing that the statutory prohibition unjustifiably restricts constitutionally protected freedoms relating to culture and religion. The Court has since confirmed that it possesses jurisdiction to hear the matter, clearing preliminary procedural hurdles and setting the stage for a substantive determination on the constitutionality of the FGM ban.

Fatou Baldeh described FGM as a “serious form of violence against women” that destroys physical and psychological well‑being and emphasised that the resurgence of the debate signals broader threats to women’s rights. She adds that “across all regions, women and girls continue to confront systematic and coordinated attacks on their hard-won rights.” The intensification of this legal struggle has drawn parallels with other retrogressive movements seen globally, where women’s rights are contested, from access to reproductive health services to protection against violence. Comparative jurisprudence, including decisions from Kenya, has similarly affirmed that bans on FGM are compatible with constitutional rights and necessary to protect women and girls. International human rights organizations widely recognize female genital mutilation (FGM) as a violation of human rights, infringing on women’s and girls’ rights to health, dignity, and physical integrity. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF categorize FGM as discriminatory and harmful, while UN agencies jointly affirm that it cannot be justified on any grounds.

The regional legal context also supports anti‑FGM stances. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice  has characterized harmful practices like FGM as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment rising to the level of torture and therefore not protected under claims of tradition or religion. This jurisprudence reinforces that even deeply entrenched cultural practices cannot justify the infliction of severe physical and psychological harm. Across West Africa, national responses to FGM vary significantly, with some states adopting comprehensive legal prohibitions and enforcement measures while others have either limited bans or no effective prohibition at all. For example, Senegal has outlawed FGM and actively pursued legal measures to suppress the practice, backed by decades of community and legislative action following its ban. Similarly, Ghana has criminalized FGM through explicit provisions in its Criminal Code and related domestic violence legislation, giving prosecutors clear authority to bring offenders to justice, and civil society has long championed enforcement. Burkina Faso, too, has statutory prohibitions against FGM and is regarded as having a legal framework with relatively strong anti‑FGM provisions among West African nations.

By contrast, other countries in the region exhibit inconsistent legal coverage or resistance to formal prohibition. Sierra Leone, for example, remains one of the few countries in West Africa with no comprehensive ban on FGM despite widespread prevalence and cultural pressure; although initiation ritual–related cutting was criminalized in 2019, other forms of FGM remain legal in many contexts. Mali and Guinea, both with some of the highest regional prevalence rates of the practice at around 88–94 percent among women, lack fully enforced national bans and continue to contend with deep cultural adherence to FGM. These disparities illustrate that, while some states have taken clear legislative and enforcement steps to protect girls and women from FGM, others have lagged or resisted codifying explicit legal protections, contributing to a patchwork of legal responses within the region.

A decision to uphold the ban would reaffirm the primacy of human rights protections over cultural relativism in harmful practices; a reversal could embolden movements to undermine women’s rights across the region. Crucially, the razor blade, a tool historically associated with secrecy and violence now symbolizes a crossroads: it may either remain a stark reminder of the urgent need for legal and social reform or become emblematic of retrogression and impunity.