By Ragan M. Conteh

A crucial parliamentary session discussing the proposed legislation on the regulation of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) saw intense debate on Tuesday, as Minister of Gender and Children’s Affairs, Dr. Isata Mahoi, clarified the government’s position regarding the age of consent for individuals undergoing FGM.

The House agreed to pass the bill’s clauses, except Clause 25, which was reserved for further review due to its controversial language.

Minister Mahoi, speaking directly on concerns raised by various Members of Parliament, reiterated that the bill seeks to protect children under the age of 18 and that FGM should only be practiced—with informed consent—on individuals who are 18 years and older.

She emphasized that this was in line with national consultations, existing practices in some districts, and the government’s child protection framework.

“We are not changing any laws or disrespecting our customs,” Dr. Mahoi stated firmly.

“We are working to protect children. The draft bill was clear in intention, but Clause 25 did not explicitly qualify the age of a child, which led to confusion. That clause should have clearly stated that it refers to individuals below 18 years.”

She added that during nationwide consultations including engagement with over 1,900 chiefs and 190 paramount chiefs—the ministry had received widespread community support for the 18+ consent threshold for FGM. Documentation including photos, videos, and signed communiqués from these meetings are available to back the ministry’s position.

“In Kenema District, for example, I was informed that a communique signed as far back as 2015 is still being upheld. It clearly states that FGM should only involve individuals aged 18 and above,” she explained.

“This bill is aligned with that practice.”

The debate turned procedural as Speaker of Parliament, Hon. Segepoh Solomon Thomas, moved the House to pass Clauses 1 to 46 of the bill, excluding Clause 25, which he described as a “sticky point” needing more clarity.

“We are going to stick a pin at Clause 25,” the Speaker said, signaling that while the majority of the bill had the support of the House, Clause 25 required further refinement before adoption.

He then ruled for the temporary adjournment of proceedings while stakeholders prepare for further discussion, specifically on the phrasing and implications of Clause 25.

The Minister concluded by reinforcing that the government is not opposed to traditional values, but seeks to strike a balance between cultural practices and the fundamental rights of children.

This debate underscores a broader national conversation on reconciling cultural traditions with human rights protections, especially for minors.

With Clause 25 on hold, it remains to be seen how Parliament will navigate the delicate balance in the days ahead.