Reviewed and updated 20 August 2026 against current court reporting, UNFPA/UNICEF material and the existing 2015 law.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
The Gambia’s legal ban on female genital mutilation remains in force.
What is being challenged in 2026 is whether the provisions criminalising FGM are constitutional.
The case before the Supreme Court, commonly reported as Almamy or Almameh Gibba and others v Attorney General, concerns sections 32A and 32B of the Women’s Act as amended in 2015. The applicants argue that the prohibition conflicts with constitutional protections including religion and culture. The State is defending the law.
As of this review on 20 August 2026, I have found no final Supreme Court judgment striking down the ban. July reporting shows the plaintiffs’ evidence had closed and the State had begun presenting its defence.
The 2015 ban still matters
The Women’s (Amendment) Act 2015 made FGM unlawful in The Gambia.
In July 2024, the National Assembly rejected an attempt to repeal that prohibition. UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO, UN Women and the UN human-rights leadership described the parliamentary decision to uphold the ban as an important protection for girls and women.
The later constitutional case is a separate route of challenge. Parliament kept the prohibition. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the relevant provisions can stand under the Constitution.
What happened in court in July 2026
Local court reporting shows that the case was still active in July.
On 8 July, the Supreme Court closed the plaintiffs’ case after their final expected witness was not produced and directed the defendants to begin their evidence.
The State then called witnesses on the legislative process and medical evidence relating to FGM.
That procedural development is important, but it is not the same thing as the court dismissing the constitutional challenge or upholding the law in a final judgment.
Until judgment is delivered, reporting should avoid announcing an outcome that has not happened.
What the constitutional question is
The applicants rely on constitutional rights and argue that criminalising the practice interferes with protected religious and cultural freedoms.
The opposing human-rights case is that constitutional rights are not exercised in isolation. States also have obligations to protect bodily integrity, health, equality and children from harmful practices.
The court therefore faces a genuine constitutional question about the limits of claimed religious or cultural freedom where the practice in question causes physical alteration to girls’ and women’s bodies and is associated with recognised health harms.
FGM is a health and human-rights issue
FGM involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia, or other injury to female genital organs, for non-medical reasons.
WHO and other UN agencies recognise immediate and long-term risks including severe pain, bleeding, infection, urinary problems, obstetric complications and psychological harm.
The existence or severity of complications varies between individuals and types of FGM. That variability does not make the practice medically necessary or remove the duty to protect children.
Where girls are involved, the safeguarding principle is particularly clear: adults should not make an irreversible non-medical alteration to a child’s genitalia on the basis of family or community expectation.
The Gambia remains a high-prevalence setting
UN agencies have repeatedly identified The Gambia as a country where FGM remains widespread.
The precise prevalence figure depends on the survey, age group and year being cited, so current reporting should link directly to validated UNICEF country data rather than repeat an old percentage as though it were timeless.
That matters because the legal debate is taking place in a country where the outcome has practical consequences for large numbers of girls and women, not only symbolic constitutional importance.
Law alone will not end FGM
The international agencies that supported retaining the prohibition have also been clear that legislation by itself is not enough.
Prevention requires community engagement, work with health professionals and religious and traditional leaders, survivor support, public education and enforcement that is competent enough to bring cases where evidence supports prosecution.
UNFPA and UNICEF’s 2026 work in The Gambia continues to include defending the 2015 prohibition while also strengthening community prevention and services.
That is the right balance. A criminal prohibition sets a legal boundary. Social change and survivor care determine whether the protection is meaningful in everyday life.
Religion should be discussed accurately
The court has heard arguments presented in religious terms. That should not be turned into a claim that Islam as a whole requires FGM.
Muslim scholars and communities hold differing views, and many religious leaders internationally reject FGM. UNFPA and UNICEF’s 2026 work in The Gambia specifically includes engagement with religious leaders who have denounced the practice and communication that FGM is not an Islamic requirement.
Accurate safeguarding avoids two equal mistakes: dismissing the reality of religious arguments being made in a particular case, or attributing those arguments to an entire faith.
Why the case matters beyond The Gambia
This litigation matters internationally because it tests whether a legal protection against a harmful practice can be weakened through constitutional claims framed around culture or religion.
It also shows why women’s rights cannot be treated as permanently secured once legislation is passed.
Legal gains can face political, social and constitutional challenge. That makes careful evidence, strong institutions and survivor-centred advocacy important long after a law first enters the statute book.
What responsible reporting should say now
- The Gambia banned FGM in 2015.
- Parliament rejected an attempt to repeal that ban in 2024.
- A constitutional challenge is continuing before the Supreme Court.
- The ban remains in force unless and until the legal position changes.
- As of 20 August 2026, a final judgment striking down the ban has not been identified in the sources reviewed for this article.
That wording leaves room for the court to do its job without weakening the safeguarding position.
Final word
The strongest argument for protecting girls does not require exaggerating the court case.
The Gambia’s ban remains law. The Supreme Court challenge is serious and still deserves close attention. Whatever arguments are made about culture or religion, the court must also confront the State’s responsibility to protect bodily integrity, health, equality and children from harm.
Rights should protect people from abuse. They should not become a mechanism for removing protection from girls.
Sources and further reading
- WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, UN Women and OHCHR: The Gambia upholds the FGM ban
- UNFPA: The Gambia FGM country information
- IHRDA: Supreme Court constitutional challenge
- Foroyaa: July 2026 court proceedings
- UNICEF Data: FGM country profiles
