By Sireh Jobarteh
The upcoming vote in the Gambian parliament on the private bill seeking to repeal the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) ban presents a crucial moment for the country. We argue here that any decision to maintain the ban on FGM would not be an essential effort for eradicating this deeply rooted cultural practice; rather it would endanger the lives of girls, and it would also hold significant implications for Gambian refugees seeking asylum in Western countries.
FGM is a practice sanctioned by both certain interpretations of Islam and African traditions, despite the repeated claims of human rights violation with severe health consequences. While many argue that the ban on FGM is crucial to protect girls and women from these harmful practices; however, another dimension to this issue is that this ban would not wane the defiance of the practicing communities which would put the lives of girls at risk if the performance leads to health risks.
Moreover, the continued ban on FGM has a potential impact on Gambians seeking asylum abroad. Thousands of Gambians have fled the country, citing political instability and persecution.
With the coming of President Adama Barrow, political asylum claims have become less relevant, leaving FGM-related torture as a primary basis for asylum applications in Europe and the USA. Maintaining the FGM ban appears to limit the chances of Gambians gaining asylum based on claims of FGM-related persecution.
Therefore, the parliament should consider medicalizing FGM as a compromise for the issue. The ban doesn’t reflect the moral consensus of the practicing communities, and their defiance to ban would continue, as a result. Therefore, medicalizing FGM would address the core issue of averting complications as a result of FGM.
Additionally, the focus should be on comprehensive education and awareness campaigns to shift cultural attitudes. It is also important to note that the practice of FGM is increasingly being rejected by younger generations in The Gambia. Many are choosing not to circumcise their daughters, indicating a shift in cultural attitudes. Repealing the ban would not change this positive trend. In conclusion, the Gambian parliament should consider the broader issues related to FGM ban.
Instead of maintaining the ban on FGM, which would eventually diminish the opportunity of thousands of Gambians escaping economic hardships created by consecutive governments to be granted asylum, the focus should be on increasing awareness, medicalizing the FGM to be conducted in health centres by qualified doctors. This approach would not address gradually decrease the practice and reduce the risk associated with performance by traditional practitioners, but it would also support the genuine claims of asylum seekers fleeing FGM-related persecution.
