By Omar Bah
Following the defeat in the Assembly of a bill to unban FGM early this month, campaigners supporting the practice have filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General at the Supreme Court seeking the apex court to declare the ban on female circumcision unconstitutional.
Female circumcision has been outlawed in Gambia since 2015, but the deeply rooted cultural practice remains widespread and the first convictions last year fueled a backlash against the law.
This prompted the National Assembly Member for Foñi Kansala, Almameh Gibba to table a private member seeking to re-legalise the practice but parliament voted against his bill.
Yesterday, The Standard saw a lawsuit filed by Hon. Gibba, Yassin Fatty, Nano Jawla, Kadijatou Jallow, Concerned Citizens, Islamic Enlightenment Society, Women’s Association for Islamic Solidarity and Gambian Women Are free to Choose, seeking to legalise female circumcision in The Gambia.
In the suit, the petitioners argued that the law banning female circumcision in The Gambia is inherently discriminatory against females particularly Muslim women and that the said law contravenes several provisions of the Constitution and International Human Rights Instruments.
The plaintiffs also argued that the defendant is constitutionally, the chief legal adviser to the government and all legal actions for and against the state are instituted by and against the defendant. They added that sometimes in 2015 the former president Yahya Jammeh in a meeting in Kanilai made a proclamation declaring the act of female circumcision illegal in The Gambia.
“The said declaration was transformed into law by amending the Women’s Act of 2010 to insert in it Sections 32A and 32B of the Women’s Amendment Act 2015, Act Number 11 of 2015. By the insertion of the said section to the Women’s Act of 2010, the practice of female circumcision became criminal in The Gambia and thereby prohibiting women and girls from participating in gender inclusive religious expression and cultural practices.”
In conclusion, the plaintiffs argued: “We submit that our case has merits and it will be fair in the interest of justice that this court being the beacon of last hope to enter judgment in our favour and declare the provisions of the Women’s Amendment Act 2015 as unconstitutional and of no effect whatsoever for all the reasons canvassed hereinbefore.”
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are natives of Kuntaur in the Central River Region who were convicted by the Kuntaur/Kaur Magistrates’ Court for engaging in the act of female circumcision. According to the suit, these named plaintiffs hold substantial customary knowledge on the practice of female circumcision.
