FGM ban challenge case reaches turning point

The Supreme Court on Tuesday 7th June closed the plaintiffs’ case in the constitutional challenge against The Gambia’s law banning female genital mutilation (FGM), paving the way for the Attorney General to begin presenting the State’s defence in one of the country’s most closely watched constitutional cases.

The matter, now before a panel led by Justice Cherno Sulayman Jallow following the withdrawal of Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow, reached a turning point after the plaintiffs failed to produce their final witness.

Representing the plaintiffs, senior counsel Lamin J Darbo informed the court that the witness, who resides in the United States, could not travel to The Gambia because the plaintiffs were unable to meet her transportation costs. He sought to have the witness’s affidavit admitted into evidence and later proposed that she testify virtually.

However, counsel Yassin Senghore opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiffs had already been granted sufficient time to file the affidavit and arrange virtual testimony. State counsel AK Wakawa, representing the Attorney General, and senior counsel Lamin K Mboge, appearing for the public interest intervenor GAMCOTRAP, supported the objection, urging the court to close the plaintiffs’ case.

Before delivering the ruling, Justice Jallow offered Darbo one final opportunity to proceed. Darbo however, left the matter to the court’s discretion. The court subsequently ordered the plaintiffs’ case closed and directed the defence to open its case.

The Attorney General indicated that Deputy Clerk of the National Assembly Aji Sainey Kah would be its first witness. However, proceedings could not continue because no witness statement had been filed on her behalf as required under the Supreme Court Rules. The case was adjourned to 13 July 2026.

The suit was filed by Almamy Gibba, Yassin Fatty, Nano Jawla, Kadijatou Jallow and several organisations seeking to overturn the 2015 amendment to the Women’s Act that criminalises FGM. They argue that the law violates several provisions of the 1997 Constitution, while the State maintains that the legislation is constitutional and remains in force.