By Ragan M. Conteh

In a deeply troubling development for human rights and the protection of girls in Sierra Leone, Parliament has taken a stance that could enshrine female genital mutilation (FGM) under the guise of tradition—ignoring decades of advocacy, international outcry, and the lived trauma of survivors.

For years, women’s rights organizations across Sierra Leone have worked tirelessly to end harmful traditional practices, particularly FGM, which is widely recognized as a violation of human rights. These groups have engaged lawmakers, mobilized communities, and highlighted the irreversible physical and psychological damage FGM causes to women and girls.

Yet, on Thursday, May 15th, 2025, that advocacy suffered a major blow.

During parliamentary debate on the landmark Child Rights Act Bill, Clause 23—which is recommendation clause in the bill directly addresses the outlawing of FGM—was met with fierce opposition from members of both the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the opposition All People’s Congress (APC). Rather than embracing the opportunity to protect children from a practice the World Health Organization defines as a grave human rights violation, Parliamentarians doubled down on defending tradition.

Hon. Dickson Rogers of the SLPP led the charge, arguing that Clause 23 could impact secret societies, particularly the male Poro society, and warned against any legal provisions that “tamper with our traditions.” He moved a motion to strike the FGM clause from the bill—effectively attempting to erase protections meant to safeguard girls from mutilation.

“If this clause remains, it will affect our traditions. This House will not tolerate it,” Hon. Rogers declared.

Support for the motion came from both sides of the aisle. APC parliamentary leader Hon. Abdul Kargbo cautioned against passing any law that lacks “the will of our people”—a statement that implicitly prioritizes cultural conformity over the rights and safety of children.

Perhaps most alarmingly, Hon. Simeon Johnny of Kono District publicly admitted that fear of backlash from constituents is influencing lawmakers’ decisions. “If we pass this bill into law, I will not return to Kono,” he said. “Our tradition is a no-go area.”

These statements expose the chilling reality: elected officials are willing to sacrifice the safety and dignity of girls to preserve political power and cultural traditions rooted in violence.

The Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, echoed the chamber’s stance, stating that controversial clauses in the bill—like Clause 23—would be “thrashed.” This sentiment confirms a coordinated effort to dilute key protections in the proposed legislation.

The move has sent shockwaves through human rights circles. Activists and survivors now face a painful setback in their fight to protect girls from a practice that the United Nations, African Union, and global health authorities have unequivocally condemned.

This moment is not just about a clause in a bill—it is a test of Sierra Leone’s commitment to human rights, to girls’ futures, and to the rule of law over the rule of fear.

If Parliament abandons Clause 23, it sends a clear message: tradition takes precedence over justice, and girls’ lives are negotiable.

The world is watching. Sierra Leone must decide: Will it protect its children—or preserve a practice that mutilates them?