It is 2026, yet women’s bodies are still governed by everyone except the women themselves. How long will women continue to be at the receiving end of men’s fight for control?
In 2015, The Gambia amended its Women’s Act to criminalise female genital mutilation (FGM). The ban was introduced to protect women and girls from a practice that has harmed millions of girls and women worldwide. From then on, anyone found performing or aiding the practice could face fines or imprisonment under the law. For many women’s rights advocates and survivors, the law marked a major victory for them after years of campaigning to end the practice.
However, in 2024, National Assembly member Almameh Gibba made an attempt to repeal the ban. The proposal caused division in the country, but in the end, it was rejected by the Parliament. Instead of ending it there, Gibba and other supporters of the repeal, including influential religious leaders, took the matter to The Gambia’s Supreme Court. He claimed that the law violates constitutional rights to culture and religion.
The Gambia remains one of the countries with the highest rates of FGM. Nearly three out of four Gambian women aged 15 to 49 have undergone this practice, with almost two out of three cut before the age of five.
One of the supporters of the repeal effort, Imam Abdoulie Fatty, has repeatedly defended this practice. During the Supreme Court proceedings, Fatty said that female circumcision reduces women’s sexual desire. He argued that the reduction was beneficial because, in his view, excessive sexual desire in women could become a problem for men.
That statement said it all. It showed us what the debates have always been about. It takes the focus away from protecting girls’ health and shifts it to men’s comfort. It treats the female body as something that should be restrained and even modified to make women more acceptable partners.
Although supporters often portray FGM as a cultural rite of passage or a religious obligation, many of the reasons historically used to justify it revolve around controlling female sexuality. Girls are cut so they will remain “pure”, so they will be less interested in sex, so they will become faithful wives, or so they will be considered more marriageable. Not once was the conversation about what the girl herself wanted.
The attempt to bring back this form of violence against women and girls is about controlling women’s bodies, and it comes at a devastating cost. The World Health Organisation has consistently explained that FGM has no medical benefits and can lead to severe bleeding, infections, infertility, childbirth complications, long-term psychological trauma, and even death. In fact, during the Supreme Court hearing, it was reported that two babies died after undergoing FGM in The Gambia in 2025.
It is heartbreaking to see this practice being defended in court, despite years of documented harms by international human rights bodies, medical experts, survivors, and researchers.
Women’s rights activist Fatou Baldeh, herself an FGM survivor and founder of Women in Liberation and Leadership, has warned that if a practice internationally recognised as harmful is still being debated at the national level, it shows that “women’s rights are really regressing.”
Hardly will a supporter openly admit that they want to control women, but their arguments say otherwise and they are almost under the guise of tradition and culture. Culture may have existed for generations, but that does not mean it should not be up for debate or criticism, especially when it permanently alters the body of a child who is too young to consent.
Women have fought for decades to be recognised as full decision-makers over their own reproductive health, sexuality, and bodily autonomy. Yet time and again, their bodies continue to be treated as matters for public debate. That is why abortion rights are still being contested in many parts of the world. It is why rape survivors are still being questioned about what they wore and where they were. And it is why protections against FGM are still being challenged.
Protecting women and girls should not stop at passing laws. We must keep educating the public, engaging communities, and standing firm in defending those laws. The Gambian government must continue to enforce laws to protect girls. Religious and traditional leaders who oppose FGM should use their influence to make it clear that culture should never come before a child’s safety. Communities must continue conversations that centre girls’ rights, and survivors must be heard and supported.
The Supreme Court decision will determine more than the future of one law. It will send a message about whether women’s rights can be rolled back in the name of tradition. If the ban is overturned, it could encourage similar attempts in other countries where FGM is still widely practised, and this would put more girls at risk.
We all have a role to play. We have to collectively reject every attempt to justify violence against women and girls. Every girl deserves to grow up knowing that her body belongs to her and to her alone. The Gambia now has the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to protecting women and girls.
Take Action: Sign the petition to help protect women and girls in The Gambia by keeping the country’s FGM ban in place. https://www.change.org/p/stop-female-genital-mutilation-fgm-in-the-gambia-now
