Gambia’s Supreme Court Affirms Jurisdiction in Landmark Female Genital Mutilation Case

The Supreme Court of The Gambia has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear a high-profile legal challenge against the country’s ban on female genital mutilation (FGM), a decision that paves the way for a constitutional battle over the controversial practice.

The ruling followed a tense legal standoff between state prosecutors and lawyers representing a group of plaintiffs led by Almami Gibba, a National Assembly member for Foni Kansala. Gibba and seven others filed suit against the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Minister of Justice, seeking to overturn the 2015 amendment to the Women’s Act, which criminalized FGM.

The plaintiffs argue that the legislation banning FGM is incompatible with several provisions of the 1997 Constitution, including rights to equality, freedom of expression, cultural and religious practices, and family life. Their legal team, led by Counsel Lamin J. Darboe, contends that the law infringes on constitutional guarantees and should be struck down.

However, State Counsel Akawa, representing the defendants, challenged the court’s authority to hear the case. Citing Section 127(1)(a) of the Constitution and the precedent set in UDP v. Attorney General, Akawa maintained that jurisdiction rests with the High Court, not the Supreme Court. Akawa also questioned the plaintiffs’ legal standing, arguing that they had not demonstrated a direct personal stake in the matter.

In response, Counsel Darboe conceded that the original filing contained legal missteps but insisted that the plaintiffs’ core argument rests on Sections 4, 5, and 127(1)(b) of the Constitution, along with Section 5(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, which empowers citizens to challenge laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. He maintained that the case is a constitutional review—not an enforcement of fundamental rights—and urged the court to prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

“The essence of our claim,” Darboe told the court, “is to challenge the constitutionality of the FGM ban, and the Constitution gives us the right to do so.”

The court ultimately sided with the plaintiffs on the issue of jurisdiction. In its ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the state’s objections and granted Darboe’s request to amend the plaintiffs’ statement of case. The court affirmed its authority to adjudicate the matter and instructed both parties to file written briefs.

Darboe was granted 21 days to submit the plaintiffs’ arguments. The state has 21 days to respond, with an additional seven days allotted for replies on points of law.

The case is expected to be heard during the next term of the Supreme Court, marking a critical juncture in the national conversation around gender rights, religious freedoms, and constitutional law.