As the Supreme Court of The Gambia prepares to deliver a landmark ruling on the constitutionality of the country’s ban on female genital mutilation (FGM), survivors and human rights advocates are expressing deep anxiety over the potential legal reversion. For many mothers, the verdict is not merely a legal milestone, but a critical determinant of whether their daughters will remain legally protected or face the same life-altering trauma they themselves endured.
The pending decision represents one of the nation's most critical constitutional challenges, intersecting complex questions of religious freedom, cultural tradition, and human rights. FGM was criminalized in The Gambia in 2015, with penalties of up to three years in prison, or life imprisonment in cases where the procedure results in death. However, enforcement has been historically sparse. The first convictions under the ban did not occur until 2023, when three women were convicted of performing the procedure on eight girls in the Central River Region. Since then, prosecution has remained rare, and the law has faced significant backlash from conservative groups.
Despite the law, FGM continues to be practiced clandestinely. According to demographic data, approximately 65 percent of Gambian girls undergo FGM before the age of five, and UNICEF estimates that three in four Gambian women have been subjected to the practice. While activists note that the ban has served as a vital deterrent, it has also driven the practice further underground, with families performing the cuts on even younger infants to evade detection.
The legal challenge follows a highly contentious legislative effort in 2024, when a lawmaker introduced a bill to repeal the ban. Supported by the Supreme Islamic Council, which characterized the practice as a religious virtue, the effort triggered widespread protests from women’s rights organizations warning that decades of progress could be reversed. Opponents of the ban argue that the legal prohibition infringes upon cultural and religious rights, whereas medical associations and human rights groups contend that any form of non-medical genital cutting constitutes a severe violation of bodily autonomy and fundamental rights.
For mothers like Mariama Jabbie, a survivor living near the capital city of Banjul, the threat is immediate. Having suffered the physical and emotional scars of the procedure since childhood, Jabbie maintains a constant vigil to protect her six- and nine-year-old daughters. She fears that if the Supreme Court weakens or strikes down the ban, social and familial pressure will leave young girls entirely defenseless.