In May 2026, The Gambia’s High Court acquitted three women prosecuted in connection with the death of an infant following female genital mutilation (FGM). The court found that the child had died from injuries sustained during FGM, but in her ruling, Justice Isatou Janneh upheld a “no case to answer” submission by the defense on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to produce legally admissible evidence establishing the criminal responsibility of the accused.
The case did not turn on whether FGM had taken place or caused the child’s death, but on whether investigators and prosecutors had gathered and presented sufficient admissible evidence to prove who was responsible. The judgment raises an important question for The Gambia: what does it take to turn laws prohibiting FGM into effective accountability?
Rule of law cannot be selective
When news spread that a one-month-old girl had bled to death following FGM in Welingira, in The Gambia’s West Coast Region, the public was understandably outraged. In such cases, people often expect courts to deliver justice by securing convictions. Yet the outcome of The State v. Fatou Camara and Others reminds us that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system depends not only on the outcome of a case, but on whether every stage of the justice process, including investigation and law enforcement, adheres to the rule of law.
The state filed four charges: performing FGM, conspiracy to commit a felony, aiding and abetting the procedure, and failing to report the act. The three accused pleaded not guilty, placing the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution called ten witnesses and submitted evidence to support its case.
The High Court did not dispute the medical evidence that the child died from injuries consistent with circumcision. Nor did it question the seriousness of FGM. Rather, the court insisted that criminal responsibility must be established through legally admissible evidence, and it correctly observed that the strength of a criminal case is measured not by the number of witnesses but by the quality and admissibility of the evidence they provide.
The court’s insistence on admissible evidence should not be dismissed as a mere procedural technicality. It reflects a foundational principle of the rule of law that courts must follow due process and conduct a fair trial. This requires the state to prove criminal responsibility through lawful and reliable evidence before it can convict a person and deprive them of their liberty. A justice system that relaxes evidentiary standards because an offense is particularly grave does not strengthen justice. It weakens it. Ensuring justice for survivors of severe human rights violations like FGM thus requires every actor in the criminal justice chain to ensure that these standards are met so that the burden of proof can be discharged.
The judgment is an institutional critique
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judgment is not the acquittal itself but the court’s observations regarding the investigation. Rather than merely concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case, Justice Janneh identified concrete investigative deficiencies that undermined the prosecution from the outset.
Several police witnesses admitted they never visited the scene where the alleged offense occurred. Others testified that their evidence was based largely on information received from colleagues rather than on their own investigative work. Material witnesses were apparently not identified or interviewed, and little effort was made to gather physical or circumstantial evidence capable of independently linking the accused persons to the offenses charged.
These were not isolated oversights. Collectively, they reveal systemic weaknesses in how the police and prosecutors investigate FGM cases. The court’s criticism extended beyond the conduct of individual officers. It raised broader institutional questions about investigative capacity, training, supervision, and compliance with statutory procedures in cases involving vulnerable victims.
When criminal investigations fail, justice fails
The evidence established that the infant died from injuries sustained during female circumcision. What it failed to establish was the criminal responsibility of the accused persons through legally admissible evidence.
That distinction matters.
The acquittal was not the inevitable consequence of an inadequate legal framework. Nor was it evidence that prosecutions are inherently difficult under the Women’s (Amendment) Act, 2015, which bans and criminalizes FGM. It was the consequence of gaps and failures in the investigative process.
The cost of procedural non-compliance in criminal investigations
Perhaps the clearest example of procedural failure was the treatment of the alleged confessional statements. The investigating officer acknowledged that no independent witness was present when statements were taken.
The court observed this breached mandatory safeguards in Section 31 of the Evidence Act, which are intended to ensure statements are given voluntarily and without coercion. Because this procedure was not followed, Justice Janneh ruled the statements couldn’t be admitted as evidence.
Significantly, the judge remarked that compliance with the statutory requirements would have enabled the court to consider evidence that may have been critical to determining the criminal responsibility of the accused.
This observation should not be overlooked. The court was effectively saying that the prosecution’s case was defeated by the failure to follow the law.
A judgment that speaks to institutions, not just individuals
The judgment therefore exposed an uncomfortable reality: legislation alone cannot secure accountability. This echoes Equality Now’s report, Towards Justice: Global Challenges and Opportunities in Litigating Cases of Female Genital Mutilation, which concludes that while laws against FGM are crucial, they must be backed by effective, adequately resourced enforcement.
Numerous jurisdictions have criminalized FGM. Yet prosecutions remain rare, with legislative gaps and inadequate implementation impeding justice. Reporting rates remain low due to factors including stigma, threats and community pressure, with inadequate protection for survivors and witnesses, and under-resourced law enforcement creating barriers. Shortcomings in investigations and evidence gathering prevent cases from progressing and cause prosecutions to fail in court. Even when convictions are secured, lenient sentencing can fail to reflect the seriousness of offences.
Viewed in this light, The State v. Fatou Camara and Others is about far more than the acquittal of three accused persons. It is a judgment about the lack of institutional accountability.
It reminds investigators that they cannot neglect crime scene management. It reminds prosecutors that they cannot build cases on hearsay or improperly obtained confessions. It reminds governments that criminalising harmful practices must be accompanied by investment in investigative capacity, forensic expertise, and continuous training for law enforcement officers.
Without those institutional reforms, even the strongest legislative protections for women and children risk becoming difficult to enforce.
The Gambia’s anti-FGM law is threatened by a Supreme Court challenge
FGM is an internationally recognized form of gender-based violence and a fundamental violation of the rights to health, bodily integrity and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When FGM results in death, it violates the right to life.
The Gambia has ratified international and regional treaties that require states to eliminate harmful practices, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Maputo Protocol, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires States to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, and recognizes FGM as child abuse.
While The Gambia has a legal framework criminalizing FGM, its full potential in preventing and eliminating the practice has yet to be realized, given ongoing gaps in implementation and enforcement. The law is now under threat from a constitutional petition filed with the Supreme Court, Almamy Gibba and Seven Others v. Attorney General, which seeks to have provisions criminalizing FGM struck down on the grounds that they infringe upon the rights to cultural and religious freedoms, equality and family life protected under the Constitution. Repealing these provisions before the law has been fully implemented and enforced would risk weakening an important legal safeguard against FGM before its potential impact has been fully realized.
The case is part of a global pushback against women’s rights, documented in Equality Now’s brief, Words & Deeds: Strategically defending the rights of all women and girls in an era of backlash. Efforts to advance gender equality are facing mounting and organized resistance, while hard-won legal protections are increasingly being challenged. But regression is neither inevitable nor irreversible.
If the Supreme Court declines to uphold the law, this could place women and girls in The Gambia at greater risk of FGM and further undermine survivors’ access to justice. The decision could undermine advocacy calling for FGM to be explicitly criminalized in Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone. And successfully invoking cultural or religious justifications to challenge laws protecting women and girls would set a regressive precedent and risk emboldening anti-rights actors seeking to weaken legal rights elsewhere.
The Gambia FGM case highlights why effective investigations are vital
The enduring lesson of The State v. Fatou Camara and Others is not that the law failed to protect a child. Rather, it is that the criminal justice system can only be as effective as the investigations upon which prosecutions are built.
The High Court affirmed the rule of law by refusing to substitute suspicion for proof. At the same time, it issued a clear warning that investigative shortcomings can frustrate accountability, even where the occurrence of a serious crime is medically established.
If there is a reform agenda emerging from this judgment, it is not the need for new offenses or harsher penalties in The Gambia. The law that criminalizes FGM must remain. What else is needed is a corresponding investment in investigative professionalism, evidentiary compliance, and prosecutorial preparedness. Only then can the promise of the law be translated into meaningful justice while preserving the constitutional guarantees that protect every accused person.
Santana Simiyu is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and a legal advisor at Equality Now, where she works to end harmful practices, including female genital mutilation and child marriage. Her work focuses on strengthening legal frameworks and accountability for violations of women’s and girls’ rights across Africa.
