Opposition to Proposed Bill HB22 on Female Genital Mutilation

Abstract

I have been reading the various articles and rejoinders for and against the HB 22 Bill that is before the House of Representatives in Nigeria. This bill is specifically targeted towards outlawing what the proponents tag “Female Genital Mutilation.” Whilst, I am not a medical practitioner, I think the use of the word “mutilation” is a misnomer, since what I have been reading so far refers in essence to “female circumcision.” With this mix up in terminology, it is apparent that the proponents have started their crusade on a false premise. As a student, in the United Kingdom in the early 1980’s, I heard first-hand about ’female genital mutilation’ from a Sudanese lady, who had a sutured labia with only a small orifice for urination. This according to her was performed as a cultural rite in order to checkmate any sexual intercourse prior to marriage. The sutured labia therefore can only be opened on her wedding night, as a test of her virginity to the bridegroom. This to me is ‘genital mutilation’ and not the ‘circumcision,’ which our forebears have carried out since time immemorial. Dr. Omoigui, who is a medical professional, must have an intimate understanding of the physiology of the female vagina, and he clearly articulated this in his essay of opposition to the bill. The only fear that could have been expressed in this regard would have been the use of quack doctors or inexperienced traditionalists in performing the procedure. Modern surgical techniques have obviously laid this fear to rest.