A medical doctor in Kenya, Dr. Tatu Kamau challenged the prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation in the country arguing that it is limiting women’s choice and right to uphold their culture. This is a surprising one, to start with. FGM is a harmful practice that is against the human rights of women. As a medical practitioner, she is expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the short and long-term consequences of FGM. The law in the first place seeks to protect women! If this was coming from a man or someone that is devoid of medical knowledge, it is possible to attribute it to lack of knowledge about the effects. She has filed a petition that girls and women can be cut if they so declare.

This shows that the perpetration of female genital mutilation is hinged on the personal beliefs of the perpetrators. Generally, the educational level of women influences their disposition to FGM but in this case, it is obvious that cultural belief and traditional perception had a stronger influence on her choice. The Kenya High Court refused this petition based on the negative health of the practice. Evidence also showed that women and girls subjected to this practice in the communities where it is done do not have a choice.

The pressure from the society and the value attached to FGM compels women to undergo the procedure even though they are aware of the harm they are exposed to. They view it as a tradition they have to uphold to prove their womanhood, for marriage, childbirth and other cultural reasons which are not true. For instance, Maasai girls in Kenya and Tanzania, also girls in Mali undergo FGM in a ceremony before being married. It is a major ceremony to celebrate the girl’s passage to adulthood. These girls are often married off because many of their families cannot afford to send them to school and marriage is seen as an escape route from poverty. A girl living in this environment might be willing to undergo FGM irrespective of consequences because of the societal acceptance attached to it.

This situation further proves that eliminating female genital mutilation requires a multidirectional and holistic approach as the impact of one method complements the other. Ending FGM can be approached from four different perspectives — legal, health, cultural and religion; and interventions should be done using the lens of the culture of the location where it is being carried out. The laws can enforce the change but sustainable change can only when the mindset of the people is actually changed.