In the past year, I have been listening to different conversations about medical Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and how it is allegedly safer compared to the traditionally performed FGM. But can we really medicalise a crime and make it okay?

FGM is a crime that takes away so much from women and girls. Not only does FGM have zero medical or health benefits, it literally puts the lives of women and girls at risk and exposes them to many morbidities. Whether performed medically or traditionally, FGM is an act that strips women and girls of their human rights and therefore should not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, according to UNICEF four million girls and women in Kenya have undergone FGM, which involves the cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. I recently got a chance to speak to an FGM survivor who narrated how the experience was for her.

She mentioned how she was scared when her parents took her to an old woman’s house, the woman who was famously known for performing the act in their village. It didn’t end there, she took me through how she constantly kept on looking at the door, hopeful that her parents would change their minds and come to her rescue, but they never came.

The fact that FGM is packaged as a rite of passage makes it even harder to end. This is because cultural practices such as rites of passage are highly regarded in our different cultures. Girls are told that FGM will transform them from girls to women and that it will highly increase their chances of getting married. They are told that after undergoing FGM, they will be respected in their communities and basically secure their place in the community. Alongside all these promises are gifts that women and girls are given before and after undergoing FGM.

She argued that women above the age of 18 years should have the right to choose. But fortunately, we dodged a bullet thanks to the three-judge bench who voted against her petition and said revoking the Constitution would be detrimental to women and that after observing survivors’ testimonies, the court was convinced that no woman or girl would consciously and freely consent to FGM. “The implication of this is that FGM cannot be rendered lawful because the person on whom the act was performed consented to that act. No person can licence another to perform a crime,” said Lady Justice Achode.

This goes to show that we still have people who believe that FGM is beneficial and should be allowed. As we commemorate the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM, we need to remember that such a harmful practice can never be safe.

We need to recognise that we all have a key role to play when it comes to ending FGM. This can be done by first owning up to the different parts we have played in creating an environment where FGM can thrive. Living in an FGM-free world is not an illusion but rather, an achievable vision.