By: Nicholas Bass
The Anti-Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] lawsuit Tuesday resumed before the Supreme Court, with the judge ordering the National Human Right Commission [NHRC]’s lawyer to file an affidavit in reply to the state’s affidavit in opposition.
Appearing before a single-judge, Justice Edrisa Mbai of the Supreme Court, defence lawyer Emmanuel Daniel Joof, representing NHRC told the court that he was not served with the affidavit in opposition filed by the state, opposing the application sought by NHRC.
‘’Am just being told that there was an affidavit in opposition,’’ defence lawyer Joof remarked. At that point the presiding Judge ordered defence lawyer Joof to file a reply to the state affidavit in opposition.
However, the state lawyer A. A. Wakawa in paragraph 3(d) argued that section 2 of the Act made the first defendant, Attorney General Chambers, the line supervisory Ministry of NHRC which according to lawyer Wakawa both cannot be defending the same suit.
Lawyer Wakawa adduced that section 12 of the NHRC Act 2017 granted the applicant [NHRC] no prosecutorial powers, adding that NHRC exercise ‘’only’’ advisory role, stating that the Commission’s work is for the protection of all citizens’ right and not for a particular interest.
The state lawyer Wakawa further argued that the Commission must at all times be neutral and maintain its neutrality as an arbiter, pleading the court to refuse the application sought by NHRC.
Then defence lawyer Joof contended that the NHRC was an independent Institute established by NHRC Act, 2017 with a core mandate of promoting and protecting human rights which according to him included the rights of women and girls in The Gambia.
NHRC lawyer states that the NHRC is an interested party in Anti-FGM suit as it touches on fundamental human rights and freedoms, including protection from harmful traditional practices, ‘’the right to health, bodily autonomy, dignity and the best interest of the child.
Defence lawyer Joof argues that the NHRC has a direct, substantial and identifiable stake in the subject matter of proceedings before the court, claiming that its outcomes as it mandated to advise the Government on compliance with national and international human rights obligations and standards.
According to the NHRC lawyer NHRC is required by ‘’law’’ to monitor and advise the government on implementation of its obligations under international human rights treaties, including the Convention on Rights of Child [CRC], the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW], and African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
NHRC lawyer further said that obligate The Gambia to prohibit harmful traditional practices like FGM, noting that the application sought was brought in the public interest and in the furtherance of the NHRC’s duty.
At that stage, the case was adjourned till next week.
Meanwhile, it could be recalled that NHRC on 4 July 2025 filed a brief of argument to be joined as a party [defendant] in the anti-FGM lawsuit file by Foni lawmaker, Hon. Almamy Gibba alongside Yassin Fatty, Nano Jawla, Kadijatou Jallow, Concerned Citizen, Islamic Enlightenment Society, Women’s Association for Islamic Society Solidarity and Gambia Women Are Free to Choose Association against the state.
The Anti-FGM complainants [plaintiffs] are seeking an order from the court a declaration to strike out sections 32A and 32B of the Women’s Amendment Act NO. 11 of 2015 from the Women’s Act of 2010 so that only section 32 the original provision of the Women’s Act 2010 will be maintained.
