Source: TRUST
NAIROBI (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – The Maputo Protocol, which marks its 10^th anniversary on July 11, has attracted controversy for its provision authorising “medicalised abortion” for women who have been raped or where pregnancy endangers the woman’s health.

Supporters of the international treaty say it is  a positive tool for African women on a range of rights issues  including women's right to participate in political processes, economic empowerment and ending harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, as well as  securing widows’ rights to inherit their husbands’ property. 

Katy Migiro spoke to Kavinya Makau , a lawyer with Equality Now and an advocate for the protocol, about its first 10 years of life.

Why is the Maputo Protocol important?

It’s one of the world’s most progressive women’s human rights instruments. It has ground- breaking provisions on questions of violence against women, safe access to abortion, women's economic empowerment.  

It also has other unique rights that are relevant to the realities of African women, such as the right to peace and the right to a positive cultural context.

The Protocol has been signed by 48 of the 54 African Union member states and ratified by  36. This in itself is something to celebrate because it signals a documented commitment by countries in Africa to promote and advance women's rights.

Why is it so controversial?

Article 14 of the Protocol talks about comprehensive access to reproductive health care including safe abortion. That’s a contentious issue. Governments ratify with reservations around that particular article.

Other controversial issues relate to women's equal access to land and property, marriage , separation, divorce and annulment of marriage. 

Are there any success stories you can point to?

In 2006, there was a 13-year-old Zambian schoolgirl who was defiled by her teacher. The protocol was really one of the tools that facilitated justice for this young girl. She sued the teacher and the school and the ministry of education and the Zambian Attorney-General.

What she used as a basis of her argument were Articles 4 and 12 of the protocol. Article 4 talks about the right to life, integrity and security of the person. Article 12 talks about the right to education and training.

The court said that Zambia had to keep its international obligations as per this instrument. They preferred criminal charges against the perpetrator. They also directed the ministry of education to take measures to protect students against such things happening. They also awarded her significant compensation.

That’s a good example of the way an ordinary girl or woman on the continent can use the protocol to remedy an injustice. 

What about Female Genital Mutilation?

In Liberia, justice was sought for Ruth Berry Peal who was forcibly genitally mutilated. She had an argument with two women from the Gola ethnic group and was summoned by the chief who ruled that she should undergo FGM as punishment.  

Ruth was forcibly taken from her home to the ‘bush’ where she was mutilated in an initiation ritual. She was kept there for a month and developed health complications. 

Following her release, Ruth filed a lawsuit against the two women who forcibly mutilated her. They were sentenced to three years in jail. The judge, in closing, made references to Article 4 of the Protocol.

Members of the SOAWR Coalition, including Equality Now, are asking Liberia to criminalise FGM, which it has an obligation to do under Article 5 of the Protocol.

So it’s more than just a piece of paper?

Legal documents are important because they are a way of documenting the protections that exist for women. In the states that have signed and ratified, you have another avenue in terms of legal protection. You can actually hold your government to account on its commitments.

But legal instruments are not enough. Governments also have an obligation to domesticate and fully implement the Protocol by instituting measures that make the rights outlined in the Protocol a reality for the women in their states.