Key Jurisprudential Developments Against Female Genital Mutilation in Sierra Leone

Background

On 8 July 2025, the ECOWAS Court of Justice delivered a key jurisprudential development that sent a powerful message across West Africa. The Court found the Government of Sierra Leone in violation of its fundamental duty to protect women and girls from female genital mutilation (FGM). The ECOWAS Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), has jurisdiction to hear human rights complaints brought by individuals and civil society organisations against Member States. Despite the widespread prevalence of the practice across the country, the State had failed to enact legislation prohibiting FGM—a failure the Court held breached its obligations under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 3(1) of the Maputo Protocol (the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa), and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Court consequently declared Sierra Leone internationally responsible for the violation and ordered the State to take legislative and other appropriate measures to prohibit and prevent FGM.

The Harmful Practice

Behind every judgment are real people whose lives and dignity hang in the balance. For women like Kadijatu, the third applicant in this case, the practice of FGM is not a ceremonial milestone but a moment of terror: held against her will, subjected to FGM, and confined for several days by members of her community. Her story is not an isolated one. In Sierra Leone, FGM remains deeply entrenched as part of initiation into societies like the Bondo, where girls are taken into the bush, instructed in customs, and subjected to cutting before adulthood as a rite of passage. According to the most recent data, roughly 83 percent of women aged 15–49 have undergone FGM, with a substantial proportion cut between ages 10 and 14 and more than a fifth cut after age 15. For countless families, resistance is not simple: community pressure, and threat of being ostracized make refusal feel impossible. 

FGM exposes women and girls to severe health complications. Women and girls who undergo FGM face significantly higher risks of obstetric complications (such as prolonged labour, postpartum hemorrhage and stillbirth), gynecological, urological and sexual health problems, as well as mental health challenges such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. In fact, the United Nations Committee Against Torture has gone further than merely condemning the practice. The Committee has found that subjecting women and girls to FGM meets the threshold of torture and as such violates Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). In Kadijatu’s case the ECOWAS Court characterised FGM as inhuman and degrading treatment because of its severe and lasting physical and psychological consequences, even if it stopped short of explicitly labelling it as torture.  Under Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture requires: (1) the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering; (2) for a prohibited purpose, such as discrimination; and (3) with the involvement, consent, or acquiescence of a public official. FGM arguably satisfies each of these elements. It causes severe and lasting pain, is rooted in gender-based discrimination, and where States fail to prevent or punish the practice, their inaction may amount to acquiescence. Taken together, these interpretations point toward a growing recognition in international human rights law that FGM can meet the legal threshold of torture, particularly where States tolerate or fail to prevent the practice.

The Legal Definition

There is a compelling argument that FGM satisfies the legal definition of torture under international law. It involves the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain, is carried out for discriminatory purposes rooted in gender inequality, and is most often performed on children who cannot give free and informed consent. The discriminatory motive underpinning the practice, which is to control female sexuality and reinforcing patriarchal norms, satisfies the “purpose” element required under the Convention Against Torture. Moreover, where States fail to prevent, investigate or punish the practice, such inaction may amount to acquiescence or consent, engaging State responsibility. Accordingly, by holding the Government of Sierra Leone responsible for failing to adopt legislation prohibiting FGM, the Court made clear that States have a positive obligation to protect women and girls from practices that violate their dignity and bodily integrity. In this way, even without using the word “torture”, the ECOWAS Court reinforced the principle that cultural practices cannot justify violence against women and girls.

The significance of this ruling extends far beyond Sierra Leone. For ECOWAS Member States, the judgment serves as both precedent and warning. It signals that governments can be held accountable not only for violating rights directly but also for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. In doing so, the Court has strengthened the role of regional justice as a safeguard when national systems fall short. The decision also empowers civil society organisations, activists, and survivors across West Africa to demand stronger protections and meaningful reforms from their governments. Ultimately, the ruling underscores the growing authority of the ECOWAS Court of Justice as a guardian of human rights in the region. The effectiveness of the ruling will ultimately depend on Sierra Leone’s willingness to implement comprehensive legislative reform and ensure enforcement at the community level. While the eradication of harmful practices like FGM will require sustained legal, social, and cultural change, this judgment demonstrates that the law can still serve as a powerful tool for accountability—and, above all, for the protection of human dignity.

What the Court Ordered

Having found Sierra Leone responsible for violations relating to female genital mutilation (FGM), the ECOWAS Court ordered the State to take concrete corrective measures. Sierra Leone is now required to enact and implement legislation criminalising FGM, adopt measures to prevent the practice and protect women and girls from harm, and ensure effective investigations and accountability for perpetrators. The Court also directed the State to provide an effective remedy to the survivor, including compensation to the third applicant, Kadijatu, for the harm suffered.  The sum of USD 30,000 in compensation was awarded, and the Court emphasized the State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the abuse. 

Other FGM Cases Litigated by IHRDA in West Africa

Beyond Sierra Leone, IHRDA has played a key role in strategic litigation aimed at ending female genital mutilation (FGM) across West Africa. In Mali, IHRDA, together with women’s rights organisations and partners including Equality Now, filed a case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice in 2021 challenging the government’s failure to criminalise FGM. The case argues that Mali’s lack of a legal framework prohibiting the practice violates the rights of women and girls under regional and international human rights standards. The matter remains pending before the Court. Read more

In The Gambia, IHRDA has provided technical and legal support in efforts to defend protections against FGM, including participation in litigation concerning the constitutionality of the country’s 2015 ban on the practice. The case comes amid ongoing national debates over attempts to repeal anti-FGM protections, with IHRDA supporting efforts to uphold safeguards for women and girls. Read More

By Louisa Yokmme Ntaji 

Legal Officer, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa