From the TRRC to the Supreme Court: What the FGM Debate Says About Justice for Women in The Gambia

The response to women and survivors who have spoken publicly about FGM has exposed a troubling reality. Many have faced hostility, intimidation, public ridicule and personal attacks simply for sharing their lived experiences. 

For Women In Liberation and Leadership (WILL), a survivor-led organisation that has worked alongside women and girls across The Gambia, this pattern is unfortunately familiar. It reflects a reality seen across many forms of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Whether the issue is FGM, domestic violence, rape or sexual abuse, attention is often diverted away from the harm suffered and redirected towards those who speak about it. Survivors are left to carry the social consequences of disclosure while the attitudes and systems that enable violence remain largely intact. Over time, this creates a powerful deterrent. Women learn that speaking about violence can bring scrutiny, criticism and isolation. It is one of the reasons so many experiences of violence remain hidden, unreported and unresolved.

It is precisely this culture of silence and impunity that The Gambia’s transitional justice process sought to confront. Through the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC), the country heard powerful testimonies from survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and documented how women were subjected to abuse, humiliation and violations that too often went unreported, ignored or unaddressed. The Commission recognised sexual and gender-based violence as a serious human rights concern requiring accountability, survivor-centred responses and institutional reform.

Yet the TRRC process also revealed the challenges that survivors face when they come forward. While many Gambians stood in solidarity with those who testified, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, who were mostly women, were subjected to public criticism, victim-blaming and attempts to discredit their accounts. For many women, sharing their experiences required not only revisiting painful memories but also exposing themselves to public judgment. Importantly, the TRRC also recognised FGM as one of the forms of sexual and gender-based violence affecting women and girls in The Gambia. In doing so, it situated FGM within a broader landscape of violence and discrimination that restricts women’s bodily autonomy, reinforces unequal power relations and silences survivors. This recognition matters because it challenges the tendency to view FGM as a standalone cultural issue rather than as part of the wider continuum of violence against women and girls.

 FGM must therefore be understood within this broader framework. The same social norms that often discourage women from reporting domestic violence, sexual violence or other forms of abuse are frequently present in conversations around FGM. 

The current backlash against women speaking about FGM raises important questions for The Gambia’s transitional justice journey. If survivors are attacked for speaking about violence they experienced as children, what message does this send to other survivors who may be considering reporting abuse? What message does it send to survivors of rape, domestic violence or other forms of gender-based violence? What confidence does it inspire in those seeking justice?

These questions are particularly important at a time when The Gambia is taking steps to implement the recommendations of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC), including the establishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office. The Special Prosecutor’s Office is expected to investigate and prosecute serious crimes documented by the Commission, including sexual and gender-based violence. Its success will depend not only on legal frameworks and institutional capacity, but also on whether survivors feel safe enough to come forward, share their experiences and participate in accountability processes.

If women see survivors of FGM being publicly ridiculed, threatened or discredited for speaking about harm they experienced, it is reasonable to ask how other survivors will interpret that experience. Will they feel encouraged to report abuse? Will they trust institutions to protect them? Will they believe that coming forward is worth the personal cost?

The significance of the Supreme Court case therefore extends far beyond the legal question before the Court. This moment will shape how future survivors perceive accountability processes in The Gambia.

The TRRC sought to create a society where victims could speak openly, where truth could be acknowledged and where harms that had long been normalised could finally be confronted. The establishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office represents an important step towards fulfilling that vision. But accountability cannot rest solely on prosecutions. It also requires a social environment in which survivors are heard, respected and protected when they tell their stories.

Whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, the questions raised by this debate will remain. Can women and girls speak openly about violence without being attacked? Can survivors participate in national conversations without being labelled, mocked or threatened? Can The Gambia build a culture of accountability while simultaneously punishing those who tell their truth?

For WILL, these are not abstract questions. They go to the heart of what justice means in practice. The TRRC challenged the nation to confront difficult truths. The current national conversation around FGM presents another opportunity to do the same. At its heart, this is not simply a debate about one law. It is a test of whether survivors can speak openly about violence and whether society is prepared to listen.