Image: Fatou Baldeh

In 2015, after a vigorous campaign against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), marred by false accusations and the unjust imprisonment of prominent activists, the practice was finally banned. However, recent attempts to repeal this crucial law through a private bill in parliament have reignited the debate.

During parliamentary discussions, familiar arguments resurfaced, with proponents of FGM citing cultural and religious justifications. However, attributing opposition to Western influence undermines the agency of Gambian women and their understanding of freedom and autonomy.

It’s essential to commend the government’s steadfast defense of the law, hoping it remains resolute against any political opportunism.

FGM’s harmful impact, as highlighted in a study by the Edward Francis Small Teaching Hospital, underscores the urgency of its eradication. From obstetric complications to neonatal risks, the severity of mutilation correlates with increased adverse outcomes, emphasizing the necessity of sustained efforts to combat this practice.

Yet, the tone of the debate in the National Assembly reflects a concerning masculine dominance, indicative of broader issues of parliamentary efficacy and misplaced priorities. While parliamentarians engage in heated discussions, neglecting pressing societal needs, the plight of women, particularly those in marginalized communities, remains unaddressed.

The recent involvement of religious authorities in advocating for FGM perpetuates archaic beliefs and hinders progress. The imposition of religious justifications disregards the overwhelming evidence of FGM’s harmful effects and reflects a regressive mindset that objectifies and controls women’s bodies.

Fatou Baldeh, a said survivor of FGM and founder of Women in Liberation and Leadership, stated in an interview with the Guardian newspaper:

We had broken the culture of silence on FGM,” she said. “We’ve moved backwards … Huge damage has already been done because of the statements issued by the Islamic Supreme Council saying FGM is Islamic.

 Resistance against the repeal of the ban remains strong, with women activists voicing their concerns and rallying against regression. The potential rollback of the ban would not only undermine previous strides but also pose significant repercussions for women’s rights and public health.

Gender activist Fallou Sowe, who is the national coordinator of the Network Against Gender-based Violence, insisted in an interview with the Guardian:

[The] Gambia took a bold step in 2015 towards eradicating FGM, so for us to go back after eight years and start again would have very, very big implications for the country.

It’s crucial to recognize that FGM is not a cultural imperative but a human rights issue, transcending tribal boundaries. The growing chorus of opposition within practicing communities signifies a promising shift towards enlightenment and empowerment, countering the outdated rhetoric of conservative Islamists.

In conclusion, the fight against FGM intersects with broader struggles against sexism and other forms of oppression, demanding unwavering commitment to safeguarding women’s rights and dignity in The Gambia and beyond.