Lawyer Lamin J. Darboe argued for the Supreme Court's right to hear a case involving Foni legislator Almamy Gibba and seven organizations challenging female genital mutilation laws. Darboe claimed the court has jurisdiction under the 1997 constitution to interpret constitutional provisions.
The legal battle centers on sections of the Women's Amendment Act that prohibit female circumcision. State lawyer A.A. Wakawa contested the court's ability to hear the case, arguing the plaintiffs' claims fall outside proper legal boundaries.
Plaintiffs seek to remove sections 32A and 32B from the Women's Act of 2010. They argue that the National Assembly exceeded its legislative authority when passing the amendment prohibiting female circumcision.
The Supreme Court granted Darboe's application to modify the suit's legal framework. The case includes several organizations challenging the law, including the Islamic Enlightenment Society and the Gambian Women Are Free to Choose Association.
The proceedings were adjourned pending a court ruling. Legal teams continue to debate the constitutional implications of the women's rights legislation.
The legal battle centers on sections of the Women's Amendment Act that prohibit female circumcision. State lawyer A.A. Wakawa contested the court's ability to hear the case, arguing the plaintiffs' claims fall outside proper legal boundaries.
Plaintiffs seek to remove sections 32A and 32B from the Women's Act of 2010. They argue that the National Assembly exceeded its legislative authority when passing the amendment prohibiting female circumcision.
The Supreme Court granted Darboe's application to modify the suit's legal framework. The case includes several organizations challenging the law, including the Islamic Enlightenment Society and the Gambian Women Are Free to Choose Association.
The proceedings were adjourned pending a court ruling. Legal teams continue to debate the constitutional implications of the women's rights legislation.
