Why the case of Satta Lamin Banya is a Litmus Test for Accountability in 2026

“States have an obligation not only to refrain from committing acts of violence against women, but to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, punish, and provide remedies for such acts.”

Rashida Manjoo (former UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women)^[1]

1. Background

On 20 March 2025, the ECOWAS Court of Justice delivered an important judgment in the case of Satta Lamin Banya v The Republic of Sierra Leone. This judgment emerged from proceedings initiated on 2 September 2021, marking a significant journey through previous attempts at redress. Satta Lamin Banya, the Applicant, was an active participant in the 2018 presidential elections in Sierra Leone, supporting the All Peoples Congress party candidate. After the election results were announced, she was brutally attacked and sexually violated by a group of young men while working on her farm. Despite reporting this heinous act to the police, there was no investigation or prosecution of the alleged perpetrators.

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) took up Satta’s case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, where she ultimately received a favorable ruling. The Court found that Sierra Leone violated the right to a remedy and access to justice under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,^[2] as well as the right to not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.^[3] As a result, the Court ordered Sierra Leone to compensate Satta USD 30,000 for the violations of her human rights, and mandated the Government of Sierra Leone to implement measures to protect women from sexual violence, ensure accountability for perpetrators, and establish comprehensive support services for survivors. Regrettably, nearly one year since this judgment was handed down, it is yet to be implemented.

2. Violence and Intimidation Against Women in Politics as Barriers to Equal Justice

The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa  (Maputo Protocol) affirms women’s right to participate freely and safely in political life, yet the persistence of violence and intimidation against women abuse in the political sphere highlights the gap between legal commitments and lived realities.^[4] The United Nation’s International Women’s Day theme for 2026 echoed the urgency of moving beyond recognition toward concrete measures that protect women and girls, and dismantle barriers to equal justice.^[5]

Satta’s case demonstrates the gendered patterns of abuse and exclusion that continue to shape women’s participation in political life. Across the world, women in politics continue to face physical attacks, intimidation, and harassment, whether as candidates, elected officials, activists, or voters.^[6] These acts are not isolated incidents. They are often aimed at reinforcing the idea that politics is a space for men to dominate.^[7] This mindset is not confined to isolated incidents or private spaces. It is reflected openly within political institutions themselves.

A few years back, a male Senator from Nigeria reportedly threatened his female colleague that he would beat and impregnate a female Senator and that nothing would happen to him.^[8] This threat reduces women to reproductive roles. This, coupled with impunity, reflect a confidence that women will not be protected, even within institutions of power. Hope Chigudu; a feminist activist from Zimbabwe with decades of experience in feminist movement^[9], rightfully once said, “women politicians will always be mauled and mangled in their homes, on the street, or in parliament”.^[10] Satta’s story is testament to this reality. She was attacked in her farm for having participated in the democratic process as any citizen is entitled to do. This context demonstrates that violence against women is not random or incidental. Satta’s case was a deliberate act of retaliation and humiliation, aimed at punishing a woman for exercising her democratic rights.

3. The Justice Gap: The ECOWAS Ruling v Lived Reality

Sierra Leone is bound by the many relevant international instruments including but not limited to the Maputo Protocol^[11] and the  Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)^[12] to which it is a signatory. In addition to these, in January 2023, Sierra Leone passed into law the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Act^[13] which among other things mandate that 30% of parliamentary and local council candidates from political parties be women.^[14] That notwithstanding, Satta’s case highlights the persistent gap between legal recognition and meaningful action. Her case also  demonstrates how the failure to investigate, prosecute, or respond allows violence to persist and deepen. After she was brutally attacked, domestic authorities failed to initiate investigations or hold those responsible accountable. Faced with these barriers to equal justice, she turned to the ECOWAS Court of Justice, seeking redress where national mechanisms had failed. Her case illustrates how the denial of justice becomes a form of continued harm, which reinforces discriminatory practices and institutional failures within states.

Satta’s case also exposes how state inaction does not end with failure to prevent violence, but often continues through silence, neglect, and procedural abandonment. Before the ECOWAS Court, the State of Sierra Leone did not respond to the court papers, file a defence, or engage with the proceedings. As a result, the Court was forced to deliver judgment in default. This did not mean the Court ruled automatically in her favor; it independently reviewed its jurisdiction, the admissibility of the case, and the evidence presented before reaching its decision. In examining the facts, the Court found that national authorities had failed Satta at multiple stages. After the attack, there was no effective police investigation. Crucial medical records documenting the sexual violence she suffered were lost while in the custody of state institutions, making it impossible for her to pursue justice through domestic courts. The ECOWAS Court held that this failure to preserve evidence seriously undermined her right to an effective remedy and reflected a lack of due diligence on the part of the state.

The Court’s judgment represents an important legal affirmation of women’s rights and accountability. The ruling speaks directly to the need to dismantle barriers to equal justice, particularly the discriminatory practices and institutional failures that prevent women survivors of violence from accessing meaningful remedies.

Yet the lived reality following the judgment tells a more troubling story. Despite the Court’s clear findings and orders, the Government of Sierra Leone has yet to take meaningful steps to implement the decision. This gap between judicial recognition and actual enforcement highlights a persistent obstacle to justice for women and girls. Court rulings, however compelling, cannot deliver equality or protection if they remain unimplemented. Implementation is therefore not optional. It is a core obligation under domestic law and under regional and international instruments, including the Maputo Protocol and international conventions on women’s rights. Enforcing court judgments is one of the clearest ways states can demonstrate commitment to equality before the law, restore trust in justice systems, and affirm that women’s participation in public and political life will not be met with violence or silence. Thus, without implementation, the barriers that women face remain firmly in place, and the call for rights, equality, and justice risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.

4. Moving from Commemoration to Rights, Justice and Action for ALL Women and Girls

This year, the theme for International Women’s Day, “For All Women and Girls: Rights. Justice. Action.”, calls on all of us; governments, institutions, civil society, communities, and individuals to dismantle barriers to equal justice, confront discriminatory laws, and challenge harmful practices that continue to deny women safety and dignity. For states, this responsibility is clear and non-negotiable. Governments have legal, constitutional, regional, and international obligations to protect women’s rights, to investigate and prosecute violence, and to implement court decisions in good faith. In cases like Satta’s, justice requires more than words on paper. It requires action that affirms women’s equal standing before the law.

The judgment in Satta’s case is not only a personal victory. It is a legal and moral marker that affirms women’s right to participate fully in democratic life without fear of violence or retaliation. It demonstrates that states can be held to account, even when they resist compliance, and that the pursuit of justice itself carries power. Her case is a reminder that justice pursued is never wasted. Even when states delay or deny action, the act of standing up matters. It shifts the narrative and reinforces the truth that women’s rights are human rights, and calls for collective action for rights, equality, and justice for all women and girls.

About the Authors:

Awa Gai is a Legal Officer at IHRDA and was part of the legal team representing the Applicant before the ECOWAS Court of Justice. She is a 2025 Waging Justice for Women Fellow under the Clooney Foundation for Justice initiative.

Abigail Nthuba is a current Waging Justice for Women Fellow under the Clooney Foundation for Justice initiative at IHRDA and the founder of the Gender Justice Advocacy and Litigation Centre in Botswana.

^[1] United Nations, Statement by Ms. Rashida Manjoo, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences at the Commission on the Status of Women – Fifty-eight session, 11 March, 2014 New York

^[2] Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/36390-treaty-0011_-_african_charter_on_human_and_peoples_rights_e.pdf.

^[3] Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. See also Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol. https://au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/37077-treaty-charter_on_rights_of_women_in_africa.pdf.

^[4] See Articles 9(1) and 4 of the Maputo Protocol.

^[5] UN Women, International Women’s Day 2026: Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls, 12 January 2026.https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/announcement/2026/01/international-womens-day-2026-rights-justice-action-for-all-women-and-girls.

^[6] Krook, Mona Lena. “Violence against women in politics.” Journal of democracy 28.1 (2017): 74-88.

^[7] Krook (2017) 74-88.

^[8] Thomson Reuters Foundation, Nigerian activists urge action after male senator accused of threatening to beat female colleague by Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani,  July 2016. https://news.trust.org/item/20160720152932-w4tp7.

^[9] Oxfam South Africa, Board of Directors  https://www.oxfam.org.za/who-we-are/board-of-directors/hope-chigudu//.

^[10] The Case of Zimbabwe by Nayaradzo Mashayamombe in Krook, Mona Lena. “Violence against women in politics.” Journal of democracy 28.1 (2017): 74-88.

^[11] Sierra Leone ratified the Maputo Protocol on 2 July 2015. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Initiatives/StepItUp/Commitments-Speeches/SierraLeone-StepItUp-PreviousCommitment-2015.pdf

^[12] Sierra Leone ratified CEDAW on 11 November 1988, without any reservations https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=156&Lang=EN

^[13] The Government of Sierra Leone, Ministry of Gender and Children’s Affairs, Policies https://mogca.gov.sl/policies/.

^[14] The Government of Sierra Leone, Ministry of Gender and Children’s Affairs, Policies https://mogca.gov.sl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/GEWE-Policy-2020.pdf.