Growing concerns over the legal status of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Sierra Leone have sparked renewed calls from human rights activists, legal experts, and survivors for the government to enact clear legislation criminalizing the practice and protecting women and girls from harm.
FGM, commonly referred to locally as Bondo initiation, remains deeply rooted in many communities across Sierra Leone despite mounting local and international criticism over its health and human rights implications. Campaigners argue that the absence of a law specifically outlawing the practice continues to expose women and girls to abuse under the guise of cultural tradition.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), FGM offers no medical benefits and can lead to serious health complications, including excessive bleeding, infections, complications during childbirth, and in some cases, the death of newborn babies. The international body has consistently classified the practice as a violation of the rights of women and girls.
Pressure on the Sierra Leonean government intensified following a landmark ruling by the ECOWAS Court of Justice in 2025, which found that Sierra Leone had failed in its obligation to protect women and children by not criminalizing FGM. The regional court described the practice as one of the most severe forms of violence committed against women.
The debate has gained fresh momentum following allegations by a 30-year-old woman, identified as Bintu Kamara for protection purposes, who claimed she was forcibly initiated into the Bondo Society in May 2026. Her account reignited public discussions about consent, bodily autonomy, and the adequacy of legal protections available to victims.
Reacting to the controversy, Sierra Leone’s First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, publicly stated that she opposes both forced circumcision and the initiation of underage girls into the practice. She maintained that any initiation should only take place when an individual reaches the age of 18 and gives informed consent.
Despite these assurances, critics have questioned whether existing laws provide sufficient protection. They point out that the Child Rights Act of 2025, while prohibiting harmful treatment of children, does not specifically mention Female Genital Mutilation or prescribe penalties for individuals who carry out the practice.
The omission has drawn criticism from rights organizations and legal advocates. A parliamentary press statement acknowledging that FGM was not expressly addressed in the legislation prompted the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone to voice strong disappointment, warning that underage girls remain vulnerable without explicit legal safeguards.
Legal practitioner Eleanor Thompson noted that although Sierra Leone lacks a direct prohibition against FGM, several existing criminal laws could potentially be used to prosecute offenders. These include provisions relating to assault, grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, and certain sexual offences.
However, campaigners insist that relying on general criminal laws is insufficient and creates uncertainty for victims seeking justice.
One of the most vocal advocates on the issue, Alimatu Dimonekene MBE, a survivor of FGM and Chief Executive Officer of A Girl At A Time, said she has repeatedly sought clarification from successive Attorneys General since 2017 regarding the existence of any specific legal protections against the practice.
Dimonekene stated that despite years of advocacy efforts, public discussions, and international scrutiny, survivors continue to ask a fundamental question about where the law specifically protecting women and girls from FGM can be found.
She further argued that recent comments by the First Lady suggesting that legal protections already exist have generated public confusion and debate. According to her, if such protections are indeed in place, the government has a responsibility to clearly identify the relevant laws, explain how they are enforced, and demonstrate their effectiveness in safeguarding women and girls.
Rights groups continue to advocate for comprehensive legislation that would explicitly criminalize FGM, establish clear penalties for perpetrators, provide support services for survivors, and promote public awareness campaigns aimed at ending the practice.
Dimonekene emphasized that women and girls deserve unambiguous legal protection, accountability for offenders, and the right to live free from violence and harmful traditional practices.
Thompson also urged authorities to fully implement the ECOWAS Court judgment, stressing that the ruling was delivered by judges from West African countries rather than external actors. She argued that the court’s findings reflected regional commitments that Sierra Leone had voluntarily accepted through various treaties and legal frameworks designed to protect women and children.
According to her, taking meaningful steps to enforce the court’s decision would demonstrate the government’s commitment to upholding the rights of girls and women across the country.
As public debate continues, survivors and advocacy groups maintain that a significant gap remains between official assurances and enforceable legal protections. They warn that until a clear and specific law addressing FGM is enacted, thousands of women and girls will continue to face the risks associated with one of the region’s most controversial cultural practices.