Sierra Leone's First Lady Sparks Outcry Over FGM Stance, Demands 'Reliable Data' on Harms

A deep chasm has emerged in Sierra Leone's battle against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), as the nation's First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, refuses to unequivocally condemn the practice, citing a lack of 'reliable data' on its harms. This stance, articulated in an exclusive response to The Guardian, has sparked an international outcry, drawing criticism from a formidable coalition of health professionals, FGM survivors, human rights activists, and politicians who accuse her of undermining crucial efforts to eradicate a deeply entrenched human rights violation.

Quick summary

• Sierra Leone's First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, refuses to openly condemn FGM, demanding 'reliable data' on its harms despite leading women's rights campaigns.
• An open letter signed by over 20 professionals and activists has been sent to Oaflad, which Maada Bio presides over, seeking clarification on her perceived support for FGM.
• Sierra Leone has one of the highest FGM rates globally, yet lacks a law criminalising the practice, and President Julius Maada Bio has remained silent on an ECOWAS court ruling mandating its criminalisation.
• The First Lady has faced additional controversy for public comments interpreted as supportive of FGM practitioners and for disparaging anti-FGM campaigners on social media.

Why it matters

The First Lady's position carries significant weight, not just within Sierra Leone but across the African continent, given her influential role as President of the Organisation of African First Ladies for Development (Oaflad). Her reluctance to condemn FGM risks legitimising a practice globally recognised as a grave violation of human rights and a severe public health issue. For millions of women and girls in Sierra Leone, where FGM rates remain alarmingly high, such statements from a figure of authority can erode trust in public health initiatives and embolden practitioners of FGM, known locally as sowei. It also sends a conflicting message to international partners and organisations committed to eradicating FGM, potentially undermining years of advocacy and financial investment aimed at protecting vulnerable populations. At a policy level, her stance, coupled with her husband President Bio's inaction on the ECOWAS court ruling, highlights a critical gap in political will that could delay or even derail the criminalisation of FGM in a country where legal protection is desperately needed.

Background

Female Genital Mutilation, or 'cutting,' involves the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia and is internationally recognised as a severe violation of human rights. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution for a global ban in 2012, highlighting the widespread consensus on its harmful nature. The procedure can lead to severe long-term health consequences, including chronic pain, infections, obstetric complications, and infertility. In Sierra Leone, FGM is deeply embedded in cultural practices, often performed as part of secretive initiation rituals by sowei of powerful Bondo and Sande societies, marking a girl's entry into womanhood. These traditions, while culturally significant for some, annually leave countless women and children with severe health complications, and in some tragic cases, lead to death.

Sierra Leone has one of the world's highest rates of FGM, with a national survey indicating that 83% of women were subjected to the practice in 2019, a slight decrease from 90% in 2013, with 71% undergoing the procedure before the age of 15. Despite these stark figures, Sierra Leone remains one of the few countries in the region without specific legislation criminalising FGM, leaving victims with little legal recourse and practitioners operating with impunity.

Adding another layer of complexity, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) court of justice delivered a landmark ruling last year, unequivocally describing FGM as 'one of the worst forms of violence against women' and meeting 'the threshold for torture.' The court explicitly ordered Sierra Leone 'to enact and implement legislation criminalising female genital mutilation and to take appropriate measures to prohibit its occurrence and protect victims.' This ruling came just weeks after President Julius Maada Bio assumed the chairmanship of ECOWAS. However, despite this clear directive and his prominent regional role, President Bio has never publicly acknowledged the ruling. Furthermore, in October of last year, he signed the Child Rights Act 2025 into law, which notably contained no provisions addressing FGM, signaling a concerning lack of governmental commitment to this critical issue.

Fatima Maada Bio, herself a survivor of child marriage who fled to the UK as a teenager, has publicly championed women's rights and leads the national 'Hands off our girls' campaign against child marriage. This background makes her current reluctance to condemn FGM particularly perplexing and controversial for many.

Controversy Ignites: First Lady's Stance Under Scrutiny

The core of the current controversy stems from Mrs. Maada Bio's consistent refusal to publicly condemn FGM since her husband's election in 2018. While she denies supporting the practice, her demand for 'reliable data' on FGM's harm, especially as a circumcised woman herself, has been widely perceived as a reluctance to engage with established medical and human rights consensus.

This ambiguity has not gone unnoticed. An open letter, dispatched on June 10, to the Organisation of African First Ladies for Development (Oaflad), which Mrs. Maada Bio currently presides over, explicitly raises concerns. More than 20 distinguished signatories, including former Sierra Leonean Minister of Gender and Children’s Affairs, Amy Smythe, and UN human rights expert Isha Dyfan, underscored that 'perceptions of support for FGM, whether direct or indirect, risk undermining years of advocacy ... and creating misalignment with national, regional and international commitments.'

Ranya Kargbo, a senior UN professional and FGM survivor who signed the letter, vocalised her alarm following a public appearance where the First Lady was reportedly filmed showing support for FGM practitioners. Kargbo stated, 'When you are in a leadership position, your words matter. When [Bio] said to the soweis [the cutters], not to be afraid of anything and that she stands with them, those were powerful words from the highest office in Sierra Leone.' Such comments, Kargbo suggested, are interpreted by practitioners as a green light, an 'absolute slap in the face for all of us' working to end FGM.

Challenging the Narrative: Data, Discourse, and Discrediting Activists

In response to the mounting criticism, Maada Bio maintained that her comments were taken out of context, intended to 'encourage dialogue and reassure women who felt marginalised.' She clarified her position to The Guardian: 'I am not in favour of any form of circumcision that is forced upon an individual,' and added that she is 'not using her voice to campaign either in favour of or against circumcision.'

However, her actions on social media have further inflamed the situation. Last week, she shared an article from September 2025 titled 'Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign' from the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics on her Facebook page, which boasts over 600,000 followers. The piece argued that a 'ubiquitous ‘standard tale’ obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected by cutting.'

More controversially, she publicly named prominent anti-FGM campaigners, including UK government adviser Nimco Ali and Girl Child Network Sierra Leone founder Anita Koroma, accusing them of doing 'nothing for our country' and labeling them 'scammers' in a separate post. While she later asserted these criticisms were not 'directed at survivors of circumcision or those genuinely working to improve the lives of women and girls,' but rather at individuals she believes 'misrepresented my position,' her public posts have created a significant backlash, alienating many who dedicate their lives to combating FGM.

Policy Paralysis: Government Inaction Amidst International Calls

The First Lady's personal stance is further complicated by the broader policy landscape in Sierra Leone. The government's failure to act on the ECOWAS court ruling, which explicitly mandated the criminalisation of FGM, is a glaring omission. President Bio's silence on the ruling and the subsequent passing of the Child Rights Act 2025 without any FGM provisions underscore a profound disconnect between international legal obligations and domestic political action. This legislative vacuum leaves women and girls in Sierra Leone without the legal protections afforded to those in many neighbouring countries, perpetuating a cycle of violence and impunity.

The Broader Fight: Local and Global Advocacy

The current controversy highlights the persistent challenges in combating FGM, particularly where the practice is interwoven with cultural identity and social hierarchies. Local and international advocates have long fought to dismantle the traditions that perpetuate FGM, often facing resistance and accusations of cultural insensitivity. However, the scientific and medical consensus on the severe harms of FGM is overwhelming, and human rights bodies consistently denounce it as a form of gender-based violence. The public statements of high-profile figures, therefore, have a tangible impact on the effectiveness of these grassroots and global advocacy efforts, influencing public perception and political will.

Qnews24h insight

The situation in Sierra Leone presents a complex interplay of cultural sensitivities, political expediency, and fundamental human rights. While the First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, may genuinely believe she is fostering dialogue or seeking a nuanced approach to a deeply ingrained practice, her demands for 'reliable data' and her criticism of anti-FGM campaigners create a dangerous precedent. This effectively provides cover for a practice with well-documented, severe physical and psychological harms, potentially undermining the global consensus on FGM as a human rights violation. The government's continued failure to criminalise FGM, especially in the wake of a binding ECOWAS court ruling, suggests a political calculus that prioritises appeasing powerful traditional societies over protecting its most vulnerable citizens. This creates a deeply concerning double standard, where a nation purports to champion women's rights while simultaneously failing to safeguard them from a recognised form of torture. For Sierra Leone to truly advance women's rights, its leadership must move beyond rhetoric and demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to ending FGM through decisive legislative and public health action, aligning with regional and international human rights frameworks.

Sources

• Title: Sierra Leone’s first lady refuses to condemn FGM without ‘reliable data’ on harms | Global development | The Guardian

  URL: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jun/17/sierra-leones-first-lady-refuses-to-condemn-fgm-without-reliable-data-on-harms

FAQ

What is FGM and why is it considered harmful?

FGM, or Female Genital Mutilation, involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is considered a severe human rights violation due to its permanent nature and often lifelong health consequences, including chronic pain, infections, complications during childbirth, psychological trauma, and infertility. There is no health benefit to FGM.

Why is the First Lady's stance on FGM particularly controversial?

The First Lady, Fatima Maada Bio, leads a national campaign against child marriage ('Hands off our girls') and is President of Oaflad, giving her significant influence. Her refusal to condemn FGM without 'reliable data,' despite global medical and human rights consensus on its harms, creates a perceived contradiction and risks undermining advocacy efforts against the practice both domestically and internationally. Critics also point to public comments interpreted as supportive of FGM practitioners and her criticism of anti-FGM campaigners.

What are the legal implications of the situation in Sierra Leone regarding FGM?

Sierra Leone does not have a law criminalising FGM, making it an outlier in the region. An ECOWAS court ruling explicitly ordered Sierra Leone to enact legislation criminalising FGM and protect victims. However, President Julius Maada Bio, despite chairing ECOWAS, has not publicly acknowledged this ruling, and a recently passed Child Rights Act 2025 failed to include any provisions against FGM. This demonstrates a significant legal and political vacuum, leaving victims without proper protection.