By Aneeta Prem
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is child abuse. It is the deliberate injury of a girl’s body for non-medical reasons. It has no health benefits and can cause lifelong physical and emotional harm. The World Health Organization is clear on this.
Right now, The Gambia’s Supreme Court is hearing a case that could weaken or remove the country’s ban on FGM. If that happens, it could become a global turning point, because it would show that child protection laws can be challenged and rolled back.
In safeguarding work, I have seen how quickly silence grows when professionals soften language. When we call child abuse “culture”, systems hesitate, and hesitation is where harm survives.
The Gambia banned FGM in 2015, making it a criminal offence.
In 2023, there were landmark convictions for carrying out FGM on girls. Those convictions became a trigger point for backlash and renewed pressure to remove the protection the law gives to children.
Now, a group led by a Member of Parliament, supported by religious figures, has brought a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, arguing the ban breaches rights linked to religion and culture.
They want the court to overturn the ban.
The argument is often framed as “freedom”. But there is a hard line in child protection:
No adult freedom includes the right to harm a child.
UNICEF defines FGM as injury to female genital organs for non-medical reasons, most often carried out on girls, and states it is a violation of girls’ and women’s fundamental human rights.
If a national ban is weakened or removed, it tells the world that a child abuse safeguard can be reversed. That risk is why this case is being watched far beyond The Gambia.
Laws do not stop abuse on their own. But they do three crucial things:
This is not theoretical. The Associated Press reported a recent case in The Gambia where a baby died after FGM, and charges were brought under the law.
Once serious harm is defended as “belief” or “tradition”, systems may start to minimise risk. That is why language matters. The safest word is the honest one: abuse.
Calling FGM child abuse is not an attack on any community. It is a safeguarding statement about an act that harms children.
FGM is practised across countries and across different faith groups. Many survivors and campaigners within affected communities lead the work to end it. The global position is clear: this is harm, not identity.
Respect people. Protect children. Name harm honestly.
Some people think this is “far away”. It is not.
The UK is home to global communities, and safeguarding must protect every child, without fear or favour. Changes in law and enforcement abroad can affect risk patterns, travel, and pressure placed on children in diaspora families.
This is why clarity is essential in schools, health services, policing, and social care. FGM must be treated as a child protection issue, every time.
Progress can be reversed.
That is why child abuse must be named, not softened. If the ban is upheld, it strengthens the message that children’s rights come first. If it is weakened, it risks opening the door to more harm, more secrecy, and more girls left without protection.
It is a Supreme Court case challenging The Gambia’s 2015 ban on FGM, arguing the ban breaches constitutional rights linked to religion and culture.
Because the first landmark convictions under the law triggered backlash and renewed efforts to remove the ban.
No. The WHO states FGM has no health benefits and can cause serious harm.
Because it is deliberate injury to a child for non-medical reasons, without meaningful consent, and internationally recognised as a human rights violation.
https://www.aneeta.com/blog/female-genital-mutilation-in-the-uk-what-we-dont-say-out-loud
Lee Milne's sentencing in Scotland is a legal milestone. More importantly, it forces the law and the public to face a truth survivors have long understood: coercive control can be fatal, even where the perpetrator did not physically commit the final act.
The UK now describes forced marriage, FGM and so-called honour-based abuse more accurately than before. But the law still struggles to prosecute how these crimes often happen in real life: through family pressure, community enforcement, fear, shame and collective control.
The World Health Organisation has marked World Health Day 2026 under the theme “Together for health. Stand with science.” It is a timely message. But health is not only about medicine. It is also about whether people can live safely, speak freely and make choices without fear.
The March 2026 safeguarding update makes one thing harder to deny: forced marriage and FGM belong inside mainstream child protection. The question now is whether institutions can act early enough to prevent harm.
Noelia Castillo Ramos died in Barcelona on 26 March 2026 after a long legal battle over her right to euthanasia. Her death will reignite debate over assisted dying. The deeper human rights question is what failed her long before the final decision.
Female genital mutilation reconstruction UK, NHS pathway for FGM survivors, clitoral reconstruction UK, FGM survivor care UK, Women and Equalities Committee FGM reconstruction