https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7344

SR (On her own Behalf and on Behalf of all Women and Girls who are Victims or Suspected Victims of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Who have been Arrested, Charged, and Detained for Crimes under Sections 20 & 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act) & 6 others v Assistant Chief Mogor VillageTrans Mara East Sub-county, Narok County & 15 others (Constitutional Petition E007 of 1000) [2026] KEHC 7344 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7344 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Narok Constitutional Petition E007 of 1000 CM Kariuki, J May 22, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 21(1), 21(3), 27(1), 27(2), 27(4), 28, 29(A), 29(C), 29(D), 29(F), 31 (A) & (C), 50(2)(A) AND 50(L) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ULTRA VIRES APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 20 AND 24 OF THE PROHIBITION OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION ACT, CAP 62 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 3(B), (V), (F), (I), (K, (L), 6(1), 8(B), AND 11 OF THE VICTIM PROTECTION ACT CAP 79A OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 5 OF THE PROTOCOL TO THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ON THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN AFRICA [THE MAPUTO PROTOCOL] Between SR (On her own Behalf and on Behalf of all Women and Girls who are Victims or Suspected Victims of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) who have been Arrested, Charged, and Detained for Crimes under Sections 20 & 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act) 1st Petitioner MCN 2nd Petitioner BK 3rd Petitioner SR 4th Petitioner VC 5th Petitioner FK 6th Petitioner Katiba Institute 7th Petitioner and The Assistant Chief Mogor VillageTrans Mara East Sub-county, Narok County 1st Respondent Kenya Police Emurua Dikirr 2nd Respondent Emurua Dikirr Sub-county Hospital 3rd Respondent The Director of Public Prosecutions 4th Respondent The Honourable Attorney General 5th Respondent The Anti-female Genital Mutilation Board 6th Respondent The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry OfPublic Service, Gender& Affirmative Action 7th Respondent The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Health 8th Respondent The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry Of Interior and National Administration 9th Respondent The Inspector General of Police 10th Respondent The Chief Magistrate’s Court, Kilgoris 11th Respondent and Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA) 1st Proposed Amicus Curiae The Initiative for Strategic LitigationIn Africa (ISLA) 2nd Proposed Amicus Curiae The Clooney Foundation for Justice 3rd Proposed Amicus Curiae Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Nji 4th Proposed Amicus Curiae and Equality Now Intended Interested Party Ruling A. Introduction 1.Before this Court are several applications seeking leave to participate in these proceedings either as amici curiae or as interested parties in relation to the constitutional petition challenging the implementation and application of certain provisions of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, particularly Sections 20, 24, and 29 thereof. The petition raises grave constitutional and human rights questions concerning the arrest, prosecution, and alleged criminalisation of women and girls who are survivors of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), and the extent to which such implementation comports with the Constitution of Kenya, the Victim Protection Act, and Kenya’s obligations under regional and international human rights instruments. 2.The applications before the Court include the Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 by the Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) seeking admission as joint amici curiae; the Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 by the Clooney Foundation for Justice seeking leave to participate as amicus curiae; the Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 by Equality Now seeking joinder as an interested party; and the Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 by Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie seeking admission as amicus curiae. 3.The applicants contend that they possess specialized expertise in constitutional law, women’s rights, international human rights law, gender justice, and the elimination of harmful cultural practices, including FGM. They assert that their participation would assist the Court by providing comparative jurisprudence, international and regional legal standards, and evidence-based perspectives concerning the obligations of the State in protecting women and girls from violence while safeguarding survivors from re-victimization. 4.The applications were supported by affidavits and written submissions detailing the applicants’ expertise, independence, and the relevance of their intended contributions. It was submitted that the proceedings raise novel and substantial constitutional questions with far-reaching implications for women and girls in Kenya and across the African continent. The applicants further maintained that their participation would aid the Court in developing jurisprudence concerning the rights of victims of violence, the State’s due diligence obligations, and the interpretation of the Maputo Protocol and related regional human rights instruments. 5.The Court has carefully considered the applications, affidavits, and submissions filed by the respective applicants. B. Pleadings The petition. 6.The Petition dated 16 June 2025 challenges the constitutionality of the State’s approach to combating Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Kenya, particularly the practice of arresting, prosecuting, and convicting alleged victims of FGM under Sections 24 and 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. The Petitioners contend that Kenya is uniquely applying a “zero tolerance” anti-FGM policy in a manner that revictimizes women and girls who are themselves victims or suspected victims of FGM. They state that the process typically involves arrests by local administrators and police officers, followed by forced genital examinations conducted in government hospitals without consent, after which the medical findings are used as evidence in criminal prosecutions against the victims themselves, undermining their dignity and humanity. 7.The Petition explains that FGM is internationally recognized as a harmful cultural practice and a form of gender-based violence that violates the dignity, bodily autonomy, and reproductive health rights of women and girls. While acknowledging the need to eradicate FGM, the Petitioners argue that the State’s current enforcement model unlawfully targets victims instead of perpetrators. They rely heavily on the decision in KL v Republic [2016] eKLR, in which the High Court declared Section 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act vague and difficult to apply, and directed the Attorney General to review or repeal the provision. The Petitioners claim that despite that judgment, the impugned provision continues to be used to prosecute victims of FGM. 8.The Petition was filed by an advocate acting in the public interest and on behalf of victims and suspected victims of FGM, together with several women facing criminal charges before the Murkan Mobile Court at Kilgoris in Criminal Cases Nos. MCCR/E077/23, MCCR/E078/23, MCCR/E079/23 and MCCR/E080/23. The 7th Petitioner, Katiba Institute, joined the proceedings in its capacity as a public interest constitutional organization. The Petitioners invoke Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, asserting standing to institute proceedings for the enforcement of constitutional rights and in the public interest. 9.The Petition names several State actors and institutions as Respondents, including local administrative officers, police officers, Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General, the Anti-FGM Board, various Cabinet Secretaries, the Inspector General of Police, and the Chief Magistrate’s Court. The Petitioners allege that these Respondents collectively participated in unconstitutional conduct by arresting victims, compelling them to undergo genital examinations, and prosecuting them using evidence obtained through those examinations. 10.The factual basis of the Petition arises from incidents in December 2023 when the 2nd to 6th Petitioners were allegedly reported to police as having undergone FGM. They were subsequently arrested, taken to Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital for genital examinations without consent, and later charged with failing to report the offence of FGM contrary to Sections 24 and 29 of the Act. The Petitioners contend that the examinations and prosecutions violated their constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, bodily integrity, health, equality, fair trial, and protection against self-incrimination. 11.The Petition sets out an extensive constitutional and international legal framework in support of its claims. It relies on numerous provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, including Articles 10, 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 43, 48, 49, and 50, arguing that the Respondents failed to uphold and protect the rights of vulnerable women and girls. It also cites international and regional instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ICCPR, the Convention Against Torture, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Maputo Protocol, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The Petitioners particularly rely on international standards requiring States to protect victims of FGM rather than criminalize them. 12.The Petition further alleges specific constitutional violations by each Respondent. It accuses the Assistant Chief and police officers of unlawfully arresting victims instead of offering support services contemplated under Section 27 of the Act. The hospital and its medical officers are accused of conducting unconstitutional genital examinations without consent. The ODPP is alleged to have violated constitutional and statutory obligations by prosecuting victims and relying on unlawfully obtained medical evidence. The Attorney General is accused of failing to act on the High Court’s directive in KL v Republic to amend or repeal Section 24. The Anti-FGM Board and relevant Ministries are accused of failing to establish proper policies and safeguards to prevent revictimization of victims of FGM. 13.The Petitioners therefore seek a range of declaratory, injunctive, and supervisory reliefs. They ask the Court to declare that forced genital examinations and the use of evidence obtained through them are unconstitutional and violate the rights of the affected women. They also seek declarations that the criminal prosecutions against the 2nd to 6th Petitioners are unlawful, oppressive, and unconstitutional. Additionally, they seek orders terminating the pending criminal cases, prohibiting future prosecutions of FGM victims under the Act, banning forced genital examinations, excluding such evidence from criminal trials, expunging criminal records of victims previously convicted under similar circumstances, and directing the release of persons imprisoned or placed on probation as a result of such convictions. The Petition further seeks orders compelling State agencies to formulate guidelines on genital examinations and to report to the Court on measures taken to address wrongful prosecutions of FGM victims. The Notice of Motion dated 16 June 2025 (Petitioners’) 14.The Notice of Motion dated 16 June 2025 was filed by the Petitioners in a constitutional petition challenging the manner in which Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act are being enforced against women and girls alleged or suspected to have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM). Sofia Rajab brought the application on her own behalf and on behalf of other women and girls said to be victims or suspected victims of FGM who had allegedly been arrested, charged, and detained under the Act, together with other individual petitioners and Katiba Institute. 15.In the application, the Petitioners sought several interim and conservatory orders pending the hearing and determination of both the application and the substantive petition. First, they prayed that the application and the petition be certified urgent and heard on a priority basis. They also sought leave for the 2nd to 6th Petitioners to prosecute the proceedings using only their initials instead of their full names. Further, they requested that their identities be concealed in all pleadings, rulings, judgments, notices, and court proceedings due to the sensitive nature of the allegations relating to FGM. 16.The Petitioners further sought conservatory orders staying and prohibiting further proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. MCCR/E077/23, MCCR/E078/23, MCCR/E079/23, and MCCR/E080/23 are pending before the Murkan Mobile Court within the jurisdiction of the Kilgoris Law Courts. They contended that unless the proceedings were halted, the affected women risked continued prosecution and possible imprisonment under Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. 17.Additionally, the applicants sought injunctive orders restraining the State, its organs, and relevant public authorities from conducting forced genital examinations on suspected victims of FGM. They argued that such examinations lacked any legal basis and violated constitutional rights to dignity, privacy, bodily integrity, freedom, and security of the person, as well as the right to a fair trial, under Articles 28, 29, 31, and 50 of the Constitution. They also sought orders prohibiting the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from instituting charges against alleged victims of FGM under Sections 20 and 24 of the Act pending the determination of the petition. 18.The application was grounded on allegations that the State had adopted and implemented a “zero tolerance” policy on FGM that effectively criminalized and re-victimized women and girls who were themselves victims of the practice. The Petitioners argued that Kenya was uniquely prosecuting alleged victims of FGM and subjecting them to invasive genital examinations without any statutory or regulatory framework authorizing such procedures. According to the Petitioners, these actions violated both domestic constitutional protections and international human rights obligations, including obligations under the Maputo Protocol. 19.The applicants further relied on the Joint General Comment on Female Genital Mutilation issued in June 2023 by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, which cautions States against framing laws in a manner that exposes victims of FGM to criminal prosecution. They asserted that victims of FGM ought to receive protection, support, and access to justice rather than criminal sanctions. 20.The Petitioners demonstrated a prima facie case of ongoing and imminent violations of constitutional rights, emphasizing that without interim orders, the petition risks becoming moot as women face immediate prosecution and potential loss of liberty, highlighting the urgent need for judicial intervention to protect public interest. 21.The Supporting Affidavit, sworn on 16 June 2025 by Sofia Rajab, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya with extensive expertise in sexual and reproductive rights and gender-based violence, was filed to challenge the constitutionality and enforcement of Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, underscoring her authority and relevance to the case. 22.In her affidavit, she deponed that the nature of offences relating to female genital mutilation (FGM) necessitated the protection of the identities of the 2nd to 6th Petitioners because of the sensitivity and stigma surrounding such allegations. She asserted that the affected petitioners had established a prima facie case showing violations of their constitutional rights and were facing criminal prosecution under Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. These provisions were themselves being challenged as unconstitutional in the petition. 23.She cited specific incidents from August and November 2024 in Meru and Nakuru where teenage girls and women were arrested and detained for alleged FGM, illustrating a persistent pattern of State violations and underscoring the urgency of the conservatory orders sought to prevent further harm. 24.Sofia Rajab explained that the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, enacted in 2011, was intended to protect women and girls from FGM and provide support services to victims, rather than criminalize them. She relied on parliamentary Hansard reports to show that the legislative intention behind the Act was protective rather than punitive. She further stated that she had conducted extensive legal research on prosecutions under the Act since 2016 and had personally represented women and girls charged under Sections 20 and 24 in several criminal matters, during which the accused persons had allegedly been subjected to mandatory genital examinations for evidentiary purposes. 25.The affidavit also highlighted her involvement in constitutional litigation concerning FGM, including participation in the case of Kamau v Attorney General & 2 others; Equality Now & 9 others (Interested Parties); Katiba Institute & another (Amicus Curiae) (Constitutional Petition No. 244 of 2019) [2021] KEHC 450 (KLR). She referred to findings made by the three-judge bench in that matter, acknowledging that women who undergo FGM are often subjected to social pressure, stigma, coercion, and vulnerability within their communities, thereby undermining assumptions that adult women voluntarily consent to the practice. 26.The deponent further averred that she had participated in various international and regional human rights forums on FGM, including expert meetings convened by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to resolutions aimed at eliminating FGM. She relied on reports from those meetings to demonstrate concerns over punitive enforcement approaches that revictimize women and girls who have undergone FGM. She also referred to her academic dissertation titled “The Implications of Prosecuting Victims of Female Genital Mutilation on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Autonomy in Kenya,” in which she documented instances of compulsory genital examinations and prosecutions of victims of FGM and analyzed their impact on constitutional rights such as dignity, privacy, equality before the law, presumption of innocence, and protection against self-incrimination. 27.The affidavit further relied on the Joint General Comment on Female Genital Mutilation published in June 2023 by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Sofia Rajab stated that the Joint General Comment expressly cautioned States against framing laws in a manner that exposed victims of FGM to criminal prosecution or characterized them as participants in the crime. According to the affidavit, the General Comment emphasized the need to distinguish perpetrators from victims and to ensure that victims were not unfairly criminalized. 28.The deponent also described her participation in national forums convened by the Anti-FGM Board and other agencies to discuss implementation of the former President’s directive to end FGM by 2022. She contended that although anti-FGM enforcement had intensified following the presidential directive, State agencies had failed to address the increasing arrests and prosecutions of victims of FGM. She criticized the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for adopting prosecutorial policies that, in her view, conflicted with public interest and the DPP’s own charging guidelines by targeting victims rather than perpetrators. 29.Additionally, Sofia Rajab deponed that between 2023 and 2024 she led a trial monitoring project covering sixty-eight FGM-related criminal cases before the Narok, Bomet, Kilgoris, and Murkan Mobile Courts. She stated that the project revealed widespread use of forced and non-consensual genital examinations on women and girls suspected of undergoing FGM despite the absence of any legal framework authorizing such procedures. According to her findings, the criminal implementation of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act had resulted in the punishment of victims more than perpetrators. It had normalized intrusive examinations as standard prosecutorial practice. 30.The affidavit further asserted that the respondents, individually and collectively, had failed to protect women and girls from FGM and had instead revictimized them through arbitrary arrests, compulsory genital examinations, and criminal prosecutions under the guise of deterrence. She argued that such actions violated constitutional rights under Articles 28, 29, 31, and 50 of the Constitution, as well as protections afforded under the Victim Protection Act and Section 27 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. 31.Finally, the deponent challenged the continued reliance by the Director of Public Prosecutions on Section 24 of the Act concerning failure to report FGM offences, despite the High Court decision in KL v Republic [2016] eKLR, where the court criticized the vagueness and potential injustice arising from the provision. She contended that continued prosecutions under that section demonstrated systemic disregard of constitutional safeguards and judicial guidance. The affidavit concluded by affirming that the facts stated therein were true to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. 32.The affidavit sworn on 16 June 2025 by MCN was filed in support of the Petition and the Notice of Motion challenging the constitutionality and enforcement of Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. MCN described herself as an adult woman and resident of Narok County who was personally affected by the impugned provisions and therefore competent to depone to the matters raised in the proceedings. 33.In her affidavit, MCN stated that on 2 December 2023, she was arrested at Kabolecho Village in Trans Mara East Sub-County within Narok County. Following her arrest, she was charged with the offence of being aware that an act of female genital mutilation had been committed on herself and failing to report the same to a law enforcement officer, contrary to Section 24 as read together with Section 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act No. 32 of 2011. She annexed copies of the charge sheet and police file to support her averments. 34.She further deponed that on the day following her arrest, police officers escorted her to the Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital, where she underwent a genital examination and a P3 form was completed, indicating that there had been total removal of the clitoris. MCN asserted that she did not consent to the genital examination and considered the procedure to have been conducted against her will. 35.According to the affidavit, criminal proceedings against her remained pending before the Kilgoris Magistrates Court in Criminal Case No. MCCR/E077/23. She stated that her advocates had advised her that Sections 24 and 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act were unclear and unconstitutional because they effectively criminalized victims of female genital mutilation by prosecuting persons who had themselves undergone the procedure. 36.MCN further expressed fear that, being a poor woman, she risked imprisonment if the prosecution proceeded. She maintained that the criminal process had caused her distress and uncertainty, and she urged the court to intervene by granting the orders sought in the petition and application. The affidavit concluded with her affirmation that the matters deponed to were true and within her knowledge, information, and belief. 37.The affidavits sworn by B.K, S.R, V.C, and F.K on 18 October 2024, together with the affidavit sworn by Nora Mbagathi on 16 June 2025, were filed in support of the Petition and Notice of Motion challenging the constitutionality and enforcement of Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. The affidavits collectively narrated the experiences of the individual petitioners who had allegedly been arrested and prosecuted as victims or suspected victims of female genital mutilation (FGM). Further, they supported the broader constitutional and public interest concerns raised in the petition. 38.In her affidavit, B.K, a 20-year-old woman residing in Narok County, stated that she was arrested on 4 December 2023 at [Particulars Withheld]in Trans Mara East Sub-County. She deponed that she was charged with being aware that an offence of female genital mutilation had been committed on herself and failing to report it to a law enforcement officer contrary to Section 24 as read with Section 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. She further stated that police officers escorted her to the Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital, where she underwent a genital examination without her consent. According to the medical findings recorded in the P3 form, there were fresh cut wounds on both the left and right labia minora caused by a sharp object. She stated that criminal proceedings against her remained pending before the Kilgoris Magistrates Court in Criminal Case No. MCCR/E080/23 expressed fear of imprisonment because of her socio-economic circumstances. She further deponed that counsel had advised her that the impugned statutory provisions were unconstitutional because they effectively criminalized victims of FGM. 39.Similarly, S.R, also a 20-year-old resident of Narok County, deponed that she was arrested on 4 December 2023 at [Particulars Withheld]within Trans Mara East Sub-County and charged with failing to report an offence of FGM allegedly committed on herself contrary to Section 24 as read with Section 29 of the Act. She stated that she, too, was taken to Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital, where a genital examination was conducted without her consent, and the medical examination allegedly revealed fresh cut wounds on the left and right labia minora. S.R stated that her criminal case, MCCR/E079/23, remained pending before the Kilgoris Magistrates Court and that she feared imprisonment if convicted. She further contended that the challenged provisions were vague and unconstitutional because they criminalized women who were themselves victims of FGM. 40.In her affidavit, V.C, a 19-year-old woman from Narok County, stated that she was arrested on 4 December 2023 at [Particulars Withheld]in Trans Mara East Sub-County and jointly charged with F.K for allegedly failing to report an offence of female genital mutilation committed on herself contrary to Section 24 as read together with Section 29 of the Act. She deponed that police officers escorted her to Emurua Dikirr Sub-County Hospital, where she underwent a genital examination without her consent. According to the P3 form, the examination allegedly showed the presence of an old scar at the edge of the clitoris caused by a sharp object. She stated that proceedings against her were pending before the Kilgoris Magistrates Court in Criminal Case No. MCCR/E078/23. Like the other petitioners, she maintained that the impugned provisions improperly criminalized victims of FGM and should therefore be declared unconstitutional. 41.F.K, another adult woman residing in Narok County, swore an affidavit substantially similar to that of V.C. She stated that she had been arrested on 4 December 2023 at [Particulars Withheld]and jointly charged with V.C for allegedly failing to report an offence of female genital mutilation committed on herself contrary to Sections 24 and 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. She confirmed that criminal proceedings against her remained pending before the Kilgoris Magistrates Court in Criminal Case No. MCCR/E078/23. She further deponed that counsel had advised her that the challenged statutory provisions were unconstitutional because they effectively treated victims of FGM as offenders. 42.The affidavit sworn by Nora Mbagathi on 16 June 2025 was filed on behalf of Katiba Institute, the 7th Petitioner. Nora Mbagathi described herself as the organization’s Executive Director. She stated that she had read and understood the Petition, Notice of Motion, and all the supporting affidavits sworn by Sofia Rajab and the 2nd to 6th Petitioners. She expressly confirmed that she agreed with and supported the contents of those affidavits. Her affidavit primarily served to affirm the Katiba Institute's institutional support for the petition and the conservatory orders sought by the applicants. C. Directions and orders of the court. 43.On 18 June 2025, the Court considered the Notice of Motion dated 16 June 2025 filed under a certificate of urgency together with the supporting affidavit. Upon perusing the application, the Court was satisfied that the matter was urgent and certified both the application and the accompanying Petition as urgent, directing that the Petition be heard on a priority basis. 44.The Court further granted leave to the 2nd to 6th Applicants/Petitioners to prosecute both the application and the Petition using their initials instead of their full names, pursuant to Rule 10(2)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules. In addition, the Court ordered that the identities of the 2nd to 6th Petitioners be concealed throughout the proceedings, including in pleadings, rulings, judgments, court processes, notices, and during open court sessions. 45.Pending the hearing and determination of the application, the Court issued conservatory orders staying any further hearing or prosecution in Criminal Cases Nos. MCCR/E077/23, MCCR/E078/23, MCCR/E079/23, and MCCR/E080/23 are pending before the Murkan Mobile Court within the jurisdiction of the Kilgoris Law Courts. 46.The Court also granted an interim injunction restraining the State and all its organs from conducting forced genital examinations on suspected victims of female genital mutilation pending the hearing and determination of the application. The Notice of Motion dated 27 January 2026 (Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA)). 47.The Notice of Motion dated 27 January 2026 was filed by the 1st and 2nd proposed amici curiae seeking leave to participate in the proceedings as joint amici curiae. The application was brought under Article 22(3)(e) of the Constitution and Rule 6 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. 48.The Applicants sought orders certifying the application as urgent and directing that it be heard on a priority basis alongside the main petition. They further prayed for leave to participate in the proceedings as joint amici curiae and for permission to file a joint amicus brief. In addition, they requested that the Court issue directions regarding their participation in the proceedings and that no order as to costs be made against them. 49.The application was premised on the argument that the Petition raised substantial constitutional and human rights issues concerning the treatment of victims and suspected victims of female genital mutilation (FGM), the obligations of the State to protect victims of FGM, and the requirement for a victim-centred criminal justice system. The Applicants contended that the Petition would have far-reaching implications on the eradication of FGM in Kenya and would require interpretation of constitutional, regional, and international human rights standards relating to violence against women, dignity, bodily integrity, access to justice, rehabilitation of victims, and State accountability. 50.The Applicants submitted that their expertise and experience would assist the Court in reaching a fair and informed determination of the issues before it. They argued that the Court would be required to determine important questions regarding the rights of women and girls subjected to FGM, the constitutionality of criminal prosecutions against victims of FGM, and the State’s obligations under domestic and international law to prevent violence against women while ensuring protection and rehabilitation for victims. 51.The 1st Applicant, Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya), described itself as a non-profit, non-partisan women’s rights organization established in 1985 to promote a society free from discrimination against women through legal aid, advocacy, public education, research, and policy engagement. The application stated that FIDA-Kenya had provided legal assistance to more than 500,000 women and girls across Kenya and had participated extensively in litigation and legislative reforms concerning women’s rights and gender-based violence, including the drafting of the Anti-FGM Act, 2011. 52.The Applicants highlighted several cases in which FIDA-Kenya had participated either as petitioner or amicus curiae. These included Dr. Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Others(Petition 244 of 2019, where FIDA-Kenya addressed the incompatibility of FGM with constitutional rights despite cultural arguments; Network for Adolescent and Youth of Africa & Another v Attorney General & Others(Petition 428 of 2018) concerning reproductive health rights and State obligations; C.K & 11 Others v Commissioner of Police & Others(petition 8 of 2012 on State due diligence obligations in protecting women and girls from violence; and Attorney General & Another v PAK & Another(Civil Appeal No. E030 of 2022) involving access to reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence. 53.The 2nd Applicant, Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), described itself as a pan-African feminist organization established in 2014 to advance women’s human rights and sexual rights through strategic litigation before domestic, regional, and international courts. ISLA submitted that one of its thematic areas is violence against women and that it had extensive expertise in litigation, research, and advocacy relating to gender-based violence and women’s rights across Africa. 54.The Applicants further stated that ISLA had participated in significant regional and domestic litigation concerning violence against women and girls. These included Tike Mabile & Equality Now v United Republic of Tanzania African Court Application 042 of 2020 before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, where ISLA addressed State obligations to prevent violence and discrimination against girls; Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape, Makanda v Coko (Women's Legal Centre Trust, Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae) (case no 248/2022) [2024] ZASCA 59 (24 April 2024)relating to international standards on responding to intimate partner sexual violence; Dr. Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & the Anti-FGM Board(Petition 244 of 2019) on State obligations in combating FGM; Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi Supreme Court Petition E018 of 2023 concerning mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences; Wambui Mwangi v Tony Mochama & Another[2023] elk involving defamation and protection of survivors of gender-based violence; and Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 others; Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (Amicus Curiae) [2021] eKLR on constitutional remedies under Article 23(3) of the Constitution. 55.The Applicants asserted that they were independent and impartial organizations not aligned with any party to the proceedings. They maintained that their intervention would not prejudice any party but would instead provide expert legal perspectives on constitutional and international human rights principles relevant to the Petition. They argued that their participation would assist the Court in comprehensively determining the issues raised concerning the rights of women and girls affected by FGM, the obligations of the State to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and the development of appropriate constitutional remedies. 56.The application was supported by affidavits sworn by Sophie Kaibiria and Sibongile Ndashe, who reiterated the expertise, institutional experience, and intended contribution of the Applicants to the proceedings. The Applicants, therefore, urged the Court to grant leave for their admission as joint amici curiae in the interests of justice and the proper adjudication of the constitutional questions raised in the Petition. 57.The supporting affidavits sworn by Sophie Kaibiria on 27 January 2026 and Sibongile Cherrol Ndashe on 26 January 2026 were filed in support of the application by the Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and the Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) seeking leave to participate in the proceedings as joint amici curiae. 58.In her affidavit, Sophie Kaibiria deponed that she is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and the Executive Director of FIDA-Kenya, duly authorized by the organization’s Board of Directors to swear the affidavit on its behalf. She stated that FIDA-Kenya is a registered non-governmental organization established in 1985 and operating across all forty-seven counties in Kenya. She averred that the organization has extensive expertise and experience in advancing and protecting women’s rights, particularly in addressing harmful cultural practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM). 59.She further deponed that FIDA-Kenya has, for four decades, engaged in legal aid, advocacy, public interest litigation, public sensitization, policy development, and legislative reform aimed at safeguarding women and girls from gender-based violence and harmful practices. According to the affidavit, the organization participated in the drafting of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011, conducted nationwide trainings for judicial officers, law enforcement officers, and members of the public on FGM-related matters, partnered with government institutions including the Ministry of Gender and the Anti-FGM Board, issued public statements against FGM, and implemented community support projects for women and girls in counties affected by the practice. 60.Ms Kaibiria deponed that through its extensive work, FIDA-Kenya had gained valuable insight into how the criminal justice system may re-victimise women and girls who are themselves victims of FGM. She asserted that the current application of Sections 20 and 24 of the Anti-FGM Act often fails to distinguish between perpetrators and victims who were coerced or forced into undergoing the practice, thereby exposing victims to double trauma through both the harmful practice itself and subsequent criminal prosecution. 61.The deponent further stated that FIDA-Kenya has previously participated as amicus curiae in several landmark constitutional and human rights cases concerning women’s rights, reproductive health, violence against women, and harmful cultural practices, including Dr. Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Others (Petition No. 244 of 2019), Network for Adolescent and Youth of Africa & Another v Attorney General & Others (Petition No. 428 of 2018), C.K & 11 Others v Commissioner of Police & Others (Petition No. 8 of 2012), and Attorney General & Another v PAK & Another (Civil Appeal No. E030 of 2022). She maintained that FIDA-Kenya intended to assist the Court by offering submissions on the principle of non-victimization of FGM survivors, the State’s obligations under the Constitution and international law, and the need for transformative remedies and victim-centred approaches in addressing FGM cases. She emphasized that the organization was independent, impartial, and not aligned to any party in the proceedings. 62.In the affidavit sworn on behalf of ISLA, Sibongile Cherrill Ndashe deponed that she is the Executive Director of ISLA, a non-profit organization registered in South Africa and established in 2014. She stated that ISLA is a pan-African strategic litigation organization focused on advancing women’s and sexual rights through domestic, regional, and international human rights mechanisms. She averred that the organization operates across several African countries, including Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, and South Africa. 63.Ms Ndashe deponed that ISLA has developed substantial expertise on violence against women and harmful traditional practices through strategic litigation, capacity building, research, and policy work. She stated that the organization has participated in litigation before various regional and international human rights bodies, including the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the ECOWAS Court of Justice, and had collaborated in developing legal standards and comparative jurisprudence on women’s rights across the continent. 64.She further stated that ISLA had previously participated as amicus curiae or intervenor in several significant cases involving violence against women, sexual violence, reproductive rights, and harmful cultural practices. These included Tike Mwambipile & Equality Now v United Republic of Tanzania (African Court Application No. 042 of 2020), Dr. Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Anti-FGM Board (Petition No. 244 of 2019), Republic v Joseph Gichuki Mwangi (Supreme Court Petition No. E018 of 2023), Wambui Mwangi v Tony Mochama & Shailja Patel (Civil Appeal No. 507 of 2019), Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape, Makhanda v Coko (Case No. 248/2022) [2024] ZASCA 59, and Mitubell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority (Supreme Court Petition No. 3 of 2018). 65.The deponent averred that ISLA intended to assist the Court by providing comparative and international perspectives on the State’s obligations to eliminate violence and discrimination against women, the adoption of victim-centred approaches in criminal justice systems, and gender-sensitive legislative responses to FGM. She maintained that ISLA was independent, impartial, and not aligned with any of the parties in the petition, and that its participation as amicus curiae would assist the Court in arriving at a just and informed determination of the constitutional and human rights issues raised in the petition. The Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 (Clooney Foundation for Justice). 66.The Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 was filed by the 3rd proposed amicus curiae, Clooney Foundation for Justice, seeking leave of the Court to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae in Petition No. E007 of 2025. The Applicant also sought permission to submit written and oral arguments, as well as any information or evidence it considered necessary to assist the Court in the just determination of the matter. Further, the Applicant prayed that each party bear its own costs and that the Court grant any other appropriate orders. 67.The application was founded because the Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ) is an international non-governmental organization established in 2016 and dedicated to promoting justice, freedom of speech, and women’s rights through its Trial Watch and Waging Justice for Women initiatives. It was stated that, through Trial Watch, the organization monitors criminal proceedings globally, exposes unfair trials, challenges laws that suppress fundamental rights, and advocates for victims of unjust convictions. Through its Waging Justice for Women initiative, the organization provides legal aid to women and girls, supports survivors of gender-based violence, child marriage, and harmful cultural practices, and collaborates with local organizations across Africa in strategic litigation and advocacy. 68.The Applicant contended that it possesses extensive expertise in matters concerning fair trial rights, gender justice, sexual and gender-based violence, and harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM). It relied on its prior work, including monitoring prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act in Kenya, publishing reports on gender violence and access to justice, and participating as amicus curiae before national, regional, and international courts, including proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and courts in South Africa and Malaysia. 69.The Applicant further asserted that the present Petition raises critical constitutional and human rights questions concerning the prosecution of survivors of FGM, the interpretation and application of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, the foreseeability of criminal liability, the right against self-incrimination, and compliance with regional and international human rights standards. It maintained that its expertise and comparative jurisprudential analysis would assist the Court in resolving those issues. The Applicant emphasized that it was independent, impartial, not aligned to any party, and intended only to assist the Court in arriving at a just determination without prejudicing any party. 70.The application was supported by the affidavit of Stephen Townley, sworn on 28th January 2026. In the affidavit, the deponent described the mandate and global work of the Clooney Foundation for Justice and confirmed that he had authority to swear the affidavit on behalf of the organization. He deponed that the Applicant had launched the Trial Watch initiative to monitor criminal trials and expose violations of fair trial rights globally, as well as the Waging Justice for Women initiative to provide legal aid and support to women facing discrimination, violence, and harmful practices. 71.The deponent further stated that, together with the American Bar Association Centre for Human Rights and Dr Satang Nabaneh, the Applicant had undertaken a detailed study on prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act in Kenya, culminating in a report published in December 2024. According to the affidavit, the study reviewed 68 criminal cases prosecuted under the Act between 2013 and 2021, including in-person monitoring of trials, analysis of court documents, P3 forms, proceedings, and judgments. The report allegedly revealed concerns regarding the prosecution of victims and survivors of FGM and the compatibility of certain prosecutorial practices with fair trial guarantees and international human rights standards. 72.The affidavit also outlined the Applicant’s involvement in several international and regional legal proceedings touching on fair trial rights, gender discrimination, and violence against women, including cases before the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and various domestic courts. The deponent maintained that the Applicant had developed extensive expertise on comparative and international standards relating to criminal justice, women’s rights, and harmful cultural practices. 73.Further, the deponent averred that the Applicant sought to assist the Court by providing impartial and evidence-based submissions on issues such as the foreseeability of criminal law, the right against self-incrimination, victim-centred approaches in criminal justice systems, and the extent to which prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act may affect victims and survivors of FGM. He asserted that the Applicant’s intervention would aid the Court in aligning the determination of the Petition with international and regional human rights standards and comparative jurisprudence. 74.Finally, the deponent stated that the application had been brought in good faith, without undue delay, and in the interests of justice, and urged the Court to allow the Applicant to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae. The outline of the proposed amicus curiae’s brief dated 29/01/2026. 75.The outline dated 29/01/2026 sets out the proposed amicus curiae brief concerning the interpretation and application of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011 (PFGM Act). The proposed amicus emphasizes that the Petition raises issues of significant public importance because FGM remains prevalent in parts of Kenya and directly affects many women and girls. While acknowledging that the PFGM Act was enacted with the legitimate purpose of protecting women and girls from the harmful practice of FGM and safeguarding their physical and mental integrity, the proposed amicus argues that concerns have arisen from the manner in which Sections 20 and 24 of the Act have been interpreted and enforced against survivors of FGM themselves. 76.The proposed amicus seeks to assist the Court by presenting comparative, regional, and international legal standards on the right to a fair trial, particularly the principles of legal foreseeability and the privilege against self-incrimination. It also intends to place before the Court research data compiled by CFJ, the American Bar Association Centre for Human Rights, and Dr Satang Nabaneh concerning prosecutions under the PFGM Act. According to the research, out of 137 individuals prosecuted under the Act and whose details were sufficiently documented, 76 were themselves survivors of FGM. The report further indicates that a substantial number of these survivors were charged under Section 20(a) for aiding, abetting, or procuring FGM, or under Section 24 for failure to report FGM. The data also reveals that some of the accused persons were minors who had recently undergone FGM and were nevertheless prosecuted for failing to report the offence committed against them. 77.The outline further highlights that genital examinations were used as evidence in many of the prosecutions reviewed, often without any indication that informed consent had been obtained. The proposed amicus contends that the prosecution of FGM survivors for offences relating to their own FGM is inconsistent with international and regional human rights standards and notes that even the Kenyan Senate had expressed concern regarding the criminalization and re-victimization of FGM survivors. 78.On the issue of foreseeability in criminal law, the outline relies on provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and decisions of international and regional courts to argue that criminal laws must be clear, foreseeable, and not interpreted expansively to the detriment of accused persons. It is argued that the application of Section 20(a) of the PFGM Act to survivors themselves was not expressly provided for in the statute and has instead emerged through prosecutorial and judicial interpretation. The amicus points out inconsistencies in Kenyan case law, where some courts required proof that survivors actively procured or facilitated the FGM. In contrast, others treated mere submission to the procedure as sufficient for criminal liability. Comparative jurisprudence from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and guidance from international organizations are cited to demonstrate that analogous laws elsewhere expressly exclude FGM survivors from prosecution to avoid criminalizing victims and discouraging reporting. 79.The proposed amicus also addresses the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to Section 24 of the PFGM Act, which criminalizes failure to report FGM. It argues that prosecuting survivors for failure to report their own FGM creates a dilemma whereby reporting may expose them to prosecution under Section 20(a), while failing to report exposes them to prosecution under Section 24. The outline cites international fair trial standards and comparative case law, recognizing that individuals should not be compelled to provide information that may incriminate them. It notes that, unlike comparable legislation in other jurisdictions, Section 24 lacks a “reasonable excuse” provision that could protect individuals from self-incrimination. 80.The outline further examines the use of medical evidence obtained through genital examinations. Relying on international human rights jurisprudence, including decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and Kenyan courts, the proposed amicus argues that non-consensual genital examinations may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and may violate the privilege against self-incrimination. The amicus expresses concern that in several cases, police arrested FGM survivors and immediately subjected them to genital examinations, with the resulting P3 forms becoming the principal evidence used to secure convictions. It is argued that the circumstances under which such examinations were conducted, particularly where the accused were minors or in custody, raised serious questions about the validity of consent. 81.In conclusion, the proposed amicus submits that the Court should consider international, regional, and comparative legal standards in interpreting Sections 20 and 24 of the PFGM Act. The brief urges the Court to recognize that prosecuting FGM survivors for offences connected to their own FGM may be inconsistent with the principles of legality, foreseeability, and protection against self-incrimination, and that reliance on evidence obtained through non-consensual medical examinations raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns. The Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026(Equality Now). 82.The Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 was filed by the intended Interested Party, Equality Now, seeking leave of the Court to be joined and participate in the petition proceedings as an Interested Party. The application was brought under Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, and other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant further sought orders permitting it to submit written and oral evidence, together with any additional information or evidence that the Court may deem necessary for the just determination of the petition. It also prayed that each party bear its own costs and that the Court grant any further appropriate relief. 83.The application was premised because the petition challenges the manner in which certain provisions of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011, have been interpreted and applied, particularly regarding the prosecution of victims and survivors of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). According to the Applicant, the petition raises important constitutional and human rights questions concerning whether the impugned provisions violate the rights of FGM survivors and whether the State has discharged its obligation to protect victims from further victimization. Equality Now asserted that it possesses extensive expertise and longstanding experience at both national and international levels in combating FGM and advancing the rights of women and girls, thereby giving it a direct and identifiable stake in the issues before the Court. 84.The Applicant stated that since 2018, it has implemented a Gender Justice Project across six counties in Kenya aimed at reducing barriers to justice for survivors of FGM. Through collaborations with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-FGM Board, it has conducted gender-sensitive capacity-building programmes for police officers, prosecutors, and healthcare providers on the handling of evidence relating to FGM in a manner that protects survivors from re-victimization. The Applicant also indicated that it is involved in advocacy initiatives, including the East African Community Elimination of FGM Bill, 2025, intended to address cross-border and medicalized FGM practices. 85.The Motion further relied on Equality Now’s expertise as reflected in its recent reports titled The Time is Now (2025) and Towards Justice (2026), which examine the harmful consequences of criminalizing FGM survivors and advocate for perpetrator-focused prosecutions consistent with regional and international human rights standards. It was contended that the Applicant is uniquely positioned to provide expert evidence, comparative jurisprudence, and submissions that would assist the Court in interpreting Sections 20 and 24 of the Anti-FGM Act. The Applicant maintained that failure to enjoin it in the proceedings would prejudice its ongoing work in promoting and protecting the rights of women and girls affected by FGM. In contrast, no prejudice would be occasioned to the existing parties if it were admitted as an Interested Party. 86.The application was supported by the affidavit of Judy Muthoni Gitau, sworn on 18th February 2026. She deposed that she was duly authorized to swear the affidavit on behalf of Equality Now, an international human rights organization founded in 1992 and registered in Kenya. She explained that the organization works globally to promote legal and systemic reforms addressing violence, discrimination, and gender inequality against women and girls through strategic litigation, legal and policy advocacy, and partnerships with State and non-State actors. 87.The deponent detailed Equality Now’s international and regional involvement in efforts to eradicate FGM, including participation in global advocacy campaigns that influenced increased funding and policy commitments against FGM by bodies such as UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations. She further stated that Equality Now played a significant role in advocacy surrounding the adoption of the Maputo Protocol, which obligates African states to prohibit and condemn FGM. 88.The affidavit further outlined the organization’s participation in litigation and human rights advocacy before national, regional, and international tribunals, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. The deponent averred that Equality Now has been involved in legal interventions in several African countries aimed at supporting prosecutions of FGM perpetrators while safeguarding the rights of survivors within the criminal justice system. 89.Ms. Gitau also referred to Equality Now’s collaboration with Kenyan institutions, including the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-FGM Board, in developing FGM case-tracking mechanisms and conducting gender-sensitive training for investigators, prosecutors, and healthcare practitioners. She recalled the organization’s earlier participation as an Interested Party in Dr Tatu Kamau v Attorney General and Others, Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2017, in which the Court upheld Kenya’s obligation to enforce the Anti-FGM Act. Since that decision, Equality Now has continued to engage with government agencies to support the implementation of the law while advocating survivor-centred approaches. 90.The deponent further stated that the petition raises significant constitutional and human rights issues concerning the State’s obligation to eradicate FGM without victimizing survivors. She asserted that Equality Now would assist the Court by presenting evidence and submissions demonstrating that prosecuting FGM survivors violates rights to dignity, privacy, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; undermines the State’s efforts to prevent FGM; and negatively affects access to justice for survivors. She also maintained that Equality Now intended to provide expert and witness evidence on the harmful health and human rights consequences associated with prosecuting victims of FGM. 91.The affidavit concluded by asserting that the matter is of immense public interest and directly affects the Applicant’s advocacy and programmatic work relating to the rights of women and girls. The deponent therefore urged the Court to allow the application and admit Equality Now as an Interested Party in the proceedings. The Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 (Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie) 92.The Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 was filed by the 4th proposed amicus curiae seeking leave of the Court to participate in the proceedings as an Amicus Curiae or friend of the Court. The application was brought pursuant to Articles 20(3)(a) and 22(3)(e) of the Constitution of Kenya, Rule 6 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant further sought directions from the Court regarding the manner in which the intended amicus curiae would participate in the proceedings if admitted, and prayed that there be no order as to costs. 93.The application was founded because Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie currently serves as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa (SRRWA) under the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The motion explained that the office of the Special Rapporteur was established through Resolution ACHPR/res.38 (XXV) 99 adopted in May 1999, with a mandate to promote and protect the rights of women in Africa. The Applicant stated that the functions of the SRRWA include assisting African governments in implementing policies for the protection of women’s rights, promoting domestication of the Maputo Protocol, conducting promotional and fact-finding missions, monitoring compliance with the African Charter and the Maputo Protocol, preparing reports on the situation of women’s rights in Africa, and collaborating with governments and international organizations on issues affecting women and girls. 94.The Motion further stated that, in the exercise of her mandate, the Applicant has engaged extensively with issues concerning Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the implementation of obligations under Article 5(b) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 21(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. It was contended that the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights had jointly developed a General Comment on FGM aimed at clarifying the obligations of State parties in eliminating FGM, addressing root causes, supporting survivors, and combating cross-border FGM practices. The Applicant indicated that she intended to assist the Court by elaborating on the obligations imposed upon States to eliminate FGM and to protect women and girls from harmful cultural practices. 95.The Applicant further averred that she sought to ensure that the Court is fully apprised of the relevant international and regional legal standards, policies, and recommendations concerning FGM and its impact on survivors. She proposed to address the legislative, institutional, and other measures that States should adopt to prevent and eliminate FGM, mechanisms for accountability at both individual and State levels, the provision of medical and psychosocial support for survivors, and safeguards against cross-border FGM practices. She also intended to provide comparative jurisprudence and evidence-based recommendations illustrating how other jurisdictions have prohibited FGM while simultaneously protecting survivors from victimization. 96.The Motion emphasized that, if admitted as amicus curiae, the Applicant would confine her intervention strictly to international, regional, and comparative legal perspectives and would not address disputed facts or take any position regarding the merits of the parties’ respective cases. The Applicant further stated that her expertise and perspective would greatly assist the Court in reaching an informed decision and in expeditiously determining the matter. She undertook to file written submissions within fourteen days of being admitted as amicus curiae and affirmed her commitment to maintaining impartiality and independence throughout the proceedings. 97.The application was supported by the affidavit sworn on 19th February 2026 by Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie. In her affidavit, she described herself as a senior Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of The Gambia practicing under the name and style of Torodo Chambers, with over thirty years’ experience in international and regional human rights law. She further deposed that she is a women’s rights advocate, constitutional lawyer, and legislative draftsperson, and the founder and first President of the Female Lawyers Association of The Gambia, an organization providing free legal services to vulnerable women and children. 98.The deponent stated that she was elected Commissioner of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in October 2021 and sworn into office on 15th November 2021, after which she was appointed as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa, a mandate later renewed in November 2024 for a further two years. She explained that her mandate requires her to gather and exchange information regarding the protection of women and girls from harmful cultural practices, develop dialogue and cooperation with governments and international agencies, report on the realization of women’s rights in Africa, and make recommendations on measures necessary to protect and promote those rights. 99.Hon. Sallah-Njie further deposed that she has recently engaged extensively with issues relating to the prevalence of FGM in Africa and has issued statements commemorating the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation, emphasizing the need for sustained legal protection and advocacy for women and girls. She stated that her interest in the proceedings arises from the fact that the petition directly implicates laws criminalizing FGM and raises issues concerning the protection of women and girls from harmful practices. 100.The deponent maintained that her intervention would assist the Court in understanding Kenya’s obligations under international and regional human rights instruments to both eradicate FGM and protect survivors from re-victimization. She stated that, if granted leave, she intended to make submissions on international and regional human rights standards, comparative legal standards, and evidence-based recommendations aimed at safeguarding the rights of women and girls who are victims of FGM and other harmful cultural practices. She therefore urged the Court to allow the application, on the basis that her expertise and independent perspective would assist it in adjudicating the issues raised in the petition effectively. D. Submissions The 3rd Proposed Amicus Curiae’s submissions 101.The 3rd Proposed Amicus Curiae, Clooney Foundation for Justice, filed submissions in support of its Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 seeking leave to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae. The Applicant prayed for orders allowing it to join the proceedings as a friend of the court, to submit written and oral arguments together with any relevant information or evidence necessary to assist the court in arriving at a just determination, with each party bearing its own costs. 102.In the submissions, the Applicant contended that the petition raises issues of immense public interest concerning the interpretation and application of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act and the implications of prosecutorial practices on the constitutional rights of women and girls affected by Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It was argued that the outcome of the petition would have far-reaching consequences given the prevalence of FGM in Kenya and the effect of the impugned provisions on survivors. 103.The Applicant submitted that it had satisfied the legal threshold for admission as amicus curiae as established by the Supreme Court in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 Others [2015] eKLR. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's holding that courts have an obligation under Article 20(3) of the Constitution to develop the law in a manner that promotes fundamental rights and freedoms, and that the admission of amicus curiae enhances access to justice and enriches constitutional jurisprudence. The Applicant further relied on Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020, which outlines the principles governing the admission of amicus curiae, including the demonstration of expertise, independence, impartiality, and a public-interest contribution. 104.On expertise, the Applicant submitted that through its “Trial Watch” initiative, it has monitored criminal trials globally, documented violations of fair trial rights, and challenged laws used to violate fundamental rights. It stated that it had analyzed numerous trials internationally and published reports concerning regional and international human rights standards. The Applicant further submitted that through its “Waging Justice for Women” programme, it provides free legal assistance to women across Africa in matters involving FGM, child marriage, gender-based violence, and economic discrimination. It argued that this work had enabled it to develop specialized expertise on fair trial guarantees and the protection of women’s rights across Africa. The Applicant also informed the court that it had previously appeared as amicus curiae before domestic, regional, and international tribunals on matters concerning gender justice and fair trial rights. In addition, it referred to a report published in December 2024, in collaboration with the American Bar Association Centre for Human Rights and Dr Satang Nabaneh, examining prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act in Kenya. 105.Regarding independence and impartiality, the Applicant submitted that it is an independent human rights organization not aligned to any party in the proceedings and that its intended participation was solely aimed at assisting the court through objective and impartial legal analysis grounded in international human rights standards. 106.The Applicant further submitted that its proposed intervention would address novel and significant issues not sufficiently canvassed by the parties. These included international, regional, and comparative legal standards on the requirement of foreseeability in criminal law; the right against self-incrimination, particularly in relation to failure-to-report provisions and non-consensual medical examinations; and comparative data and findings arising from its research on prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act in Kenya. It was argued that these matters raised important constitutional and public interest concerns relating to the implementation of the law and the protection of women and girls affected by FGM. 107.In conclusion, the Applicant maintained that its expertise and comparative human rights perspective would greatly assist the court in determining the constitutional issues raised in the petition. It therefore urged the court to allow the application and admit it as amicus curiae in the proceedings. The 1st and 2nd proposed Amici Curiae, Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), joint Submissions. 108.The 1st and 2nd proposed Amici Curiae, Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), filed joint written submissions in support of their application dated 27th January 2026 seeking leave to participate in the proceedings as amici curiae. The Applicants submitted that the petition concerns the constitutional and human rights implications arising from the enforcement of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011, particularly the criminalization of victims and survivors of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), which they argued raises significant constitutional and public interest concerns. 109.The Applicants submitted that FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of women and girls, amounting to discrimination based on sex and gender and constituting a form of gender-based violence. They contended that while the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act provide strong protections against the practice, concerns had emerged regarding enforcement mechanisms that criminalize victims contrary to Kenya’s treaty obligations and the principle of non-victimization. 110.In support of their application for admission as amici curiae, the Applicants relied on the decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, where the Supreme Court affirmed that courts have a duty under Article 20(3) of the Constitution to develop the law in a manner that promotes rights and freedoms. The Applicants cited the court’s holding that the admission of amici curiae assists courts in enhancing access to justice and promoting constitutional jurisprudence. They further relied on the Supreme Court’s exposition that an amicus curiae is interested only in ensuring that the court reaches a legal, informed, and just decision in the public interest. 111.On expertise, the Applicants submitted that together they possess over sixty years of specialized experience in advancing women’s rights. FIDA-Kenya was described as a pioneer women’s rights organization established in 1985 that has provided legal aid to more than 500,000 women and girls across Kenya’s forty-seven counties. It was submitted that FIDA-Kenya participated in the drafting of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011, and has extensive experience in legal aid, public awareness, policy advocacy, and strategic litigation relating to violence against women and FGM. 112.The Applicants highlighted several cases in which FIDA-Kenya had previously participated as amicus curiae or intervener, including Dr. Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Others, where it addressed the incompatibility of FGM with constitutional rights to dignity and health; Network for Adolescent and Youth of Africa & Another v Attorney General & Others, concerning reproductive health rights; C.K & 11 Others v Commissioner of Police & Others, relating to the state’s duty to protect women and girls from violence; and Attorney General & Another v PAK & Another, involving reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence. 113.About ISLA, the Applicants submitted that it is a pan-African feminist organization established in 2014 that specializes in strategic litigation and advocacy aimed at advancing women’s human rights and sexual rights across Africa. ISLA was said to engage in litigation before regional and domestic courts, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the ECOWAS Court of Justice, and the East African Court of Justice. The Applicants stated that ISLA has developed expertise through strategic litigation, research, and advocacy on violence against women and has participated as amicus curiae in various important cases. 114.Among the authorities relied upon were Tike Mwambipile & Equality Now v United Republic of Tanzania, where ISLA addressed state obligations relating to protection against violence and discrimination; Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape, Makhanda v Coko [2024] ZASCA 59, concerning state obligations in responding to intimate partner sexual violence; Republic v Joshua Gichuki Mwangi on mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offences; Wambui Mwangi v Tony Mochama & Another [2023] eKLR, involving protection of victims of sexual and gender-based violence in defamation law; and Mitu-Bell Welfare Society v Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others [2021] eKLR, concerning development of constitutional remedies under Article 23(3) of the Constitution. 115.The Applicants submitted that their intervention would assist the court on several novel issues not fully addressed by the parties. These included the state’s due diligence obligations to protect victims of FGM; the obligation to provide rehabilitation, reintegration, and transformative remedies to victims; the need for victim-centred approaches within the criminal justice system; and comparative jurisprudence on gender-sensitive legislative responses to FGM in other jurisdictions. They argued that the petition raises novel constitutional questions concerning the interpretation of Sections 20 and 24 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act and the extent of the state’s obligations toward victims of violence. 116.The Applicants further submitted that they are independent and impartial organizations not aligned with any of the parties to the proceedings and that their interest lies solely in assisting the court in the development of jurisprudence on women’s rights and state obligations toward victims of violence. They maintained that their proposed submissions would provide contextual analysis and comparative international and regional human rights perspectives necessary for a just determination of the petition. 117.In conclusion, the Applicants argued that their expertise and proposed intervention would aid the court in resolving the constitutional and human rights issues raised in the petition. They therefore prayed that the court admit them as joint amici curiae and, relying on the principles set out in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, requested that no order as to costs be made. The intended Interested Party’s submissions 118.The intended Interested Party, Equality Now, filed written submissions in support of its Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 seeking leave to be joined in the proceedings as an Interested Party. The application was supported by the affidavit of Judy Muthoni Gitau, sworn on the same date. Equality Now submitted that the petition challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, which allegedly result in the criminalization of women who have undergone, or are suspected to have undergone, female genital mutilation (FGM). It argued that the petition raises critical constitutional and human rights issues whose determination would directly affect its work and mandate relating to the eradication of FGM and protection of survivors. Consequently, it sought leave to participate in the proceedings and to place before the court information and expertise relevant to the just determination of the dispute. 119.On the applicable legal principles, the Proposed Interested Party relied on Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, which defines an interested party as a person or entity with an identifiable stake, legal interest, or duty in proceedings before the court, though not a direct party to the litigation. Equality Now further relied on the decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu [2014] eKLR, where the Supreme Court explained that an interested party has a stake in the proceedings and whose interests may be affected by the court’s determination, thereby necessitating participation to articulate and protect those interests adequately. It also cited Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR, in which the Supreme Court outlined the requirements for admission as an interested party, namely: demonstration of a clear and proximate personal stake in the matter; proof of prejudice likely to be suffered if joinder is denied; and disclosure of the submissions or contribution the party intends to make, showing that such contribution is relevant and not merely duplicative of the parties’ arguments. 120.Applying those principles, Equality Now submitted that it had demonstrated a clear and identifiable stake in the proceedings. It argued that it is an international human rights organization with longstanding expertise in constitutional law, women’s rights, and international human rights law, particularly in combating FGM. It stated that it had participated in global campaigns advocating for recognition of FGM as a human rights violation, mobilized support for anti-FGM initiatives, and undertaken litigation and legal interventions in various African countries to assist in the prosecution of perpetrators while safeguarding the rights of victims within the criminal justice process. The Proposed Interested Party also highlighted its participation in Dr Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Others, Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2017, in which it was admitted as an interested party and contributed to the litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. It submitted that following the judgment in that matter, it continued collaborating with state actors, including the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-FGM Board, through capacity-building initiatives aimed at ensuring gender-sensitive handling of FGM cases and preventing re-victimization of survivors. 121.On prejudice, Equality Now argued that denial of joinder would hinder its ability to fulfil its mandate and protect the interests it has consistently advanced concerning the rights of women and girls affected by FGM. It contended that the outcome of the petition would directly affect its ongoing advocacy, partnerships, and programmes aimed at eliminating FGM and protecting survivors from secondary victimization through prosecution. 122.Regarding its intended contribution, the Proposed Interested Party submitted that, if admitted, it would assist the court by addressing issues not adequately covered by the parties. In particular, it intended to demonstrate that prosecution of victims of FGM violates constitutional and human rights protections under both domestic and international law; explain the harmful health consequences and re-victimization associated with prosecuting survivors; clarify Kenya’s obligations under international and regional human rights instruments to prevent FGM and protect survivors from re-victimization; and illustrate how criminal prosecution of victims undermines effective investigation and prosecution of perpetrators. Equality Now emphasized that its submissions would not duplicate those of the parties but would instead draw from its extensive regional and international expertise and experience in legal advocacy concerning FGM. 123.In conclusion, Equality Now submitted that it had satisfied all the criteria established by the Supreme Court in Muruatetu for admission as an interested party. It maintained that it had demonstrated a proximate and identifiable interest in the proceedings, established the prejudice it would suffer if denied participation, and outlined a unique and relevant contribution that would assist the court in arriving at a just determination. The intended Interested Party, therefore, urged the court to exercise its discretion in its favour and grant the orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026. The 4th Proposed Amicus Curiae’s skeleton submissions. 124.The 4th Proposed Amicus Curiae, Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie, filed skeleton submissions in support of her application dated 20th February 2026 seeking leave to participate in the proceedings as amicus curiae. The application was brought pursuant to Article 22(3)(e) of the Constitution of Kenya and Rule 6 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. The Applicant submitted that the petition before the High Court at Narok concerns the arrest, prosecution and conviction of survivors of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) under section 29 of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, and raises allegations that victims are subjected to criminalization and forced genital examinations at the direction of police officers. It was contended that the petition, therefore, raises issues of immense public interest touching on the constitutional and human rights of women and girls who are survivors of FGM. 125.The Proposed Amicus Curiae submitted that the petition seeks declarations that the criminalization of FGM survivors violates several constitutional rights under Articles 21, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, contravenes provisions of the Victim Protection Act, and amounts to a violation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol). She argued that the matter raises important questions regarding Kenya’s obligations under regional and international human rights instruments concerning the protection of women and girls from harmful cultural practices. 126.In support of the application, the Applicant explained that civil society organizations operating in Kenya and across Africa had invited her, in her official capacity as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa (SRRWA) under the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to intervene in the proceedings owing to the continental importance of the issues raised. She submitted that the mandate of the SRRWA was established through Resolution ACHPR/res.38 (XXV) 99 adopted in May 1999 by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Applicant outlined the functions of the SRRWA, which include promoting and protecting the rights of women in Africa, assisting African governments in harmonizing domestic legislation with the Maputo Protocol, conducting fact-finding missions, monitoring implementation of women’s rights instruments, undertaking comparative studies, and collaborating with relevant international and regional actors on women’s rights issues. It was submitted that these responsibilities place the SRRWA in a unique position to assist the court in interpreting Kenya’s obligations under the African human rights framework. 127.The Applicant further submitted that her intervention would focus on clarifying the human rights obligations imposed on states under regional instruments, particularly the Maputo Protocol and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. She stated that the office of the SRRWA continuously engages with governments, civil society organizations and international institutions on matters concerning women’s rights and harmful cultural practices such as FGM. In that regard, she proposed to assist the court by drawing from comparative African experiences and from the work undertaken by the African Commission and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 128.Particular emphasis was placed on the Joint General Comment developed by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights concerning the elimination of FGM. The Applicant submitted that the Joint General Comment clarifies state obligations to eliminate FGM, address root causes, provide support to survivors, and combat cross-border FGM practices. She argued that, if admitted, she would assist the court by elaborating the obligations imposed by Article 5(b) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 21(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, particularly the legislative, institutional and policy measures required of states to eradicate FGM while protecting victims from re-victimization. 129.The Proposed Amicus Curiae further submitted that she would guide the court on the human rights-based approach adopted by African regional bodies in combating harmful cultural practices. She intended to explain that while criminalization of FGM is essential in protecting women and girls, enforcement measures must equally preserve the rights to dignity, autonomy and bodily integrity of survivors. She argued that the African Union framework recognizes the need to ensure that anti-FGM laws are implemented in a manner that protects women and girls rather than victimizing them through punitive practices. Accordingly, she proposed to assist the court by clarifying Kenya’s obligations regarding accountability, survivor support, psychosocial and medical services, cross-border FGM prevention, and protection of women and girls displaced or seeking asylum due to the threat of FGM. 130.On the scope of her intended participation, the Applicant submitted that, if admitted, she would provide submissions on international and regional human rights obligations, comparative legal standards relevant to the petition, evidence-based recommendations on protection of women’s rights, and comparative jurisprudence from similar jurisdictions. She emphasized that her participation would not advance the position of any party to the proceedings but would instead provide an independent and objective perspective grounded in regional and international human rights law. 131.In support of the applicable legal principles, the Applicant relied on Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, in which the Supreme Court held that an amicus curiae must demonstrate neutrality, independence, expertise relevant to the issues before the court, and the ability to assist the court without duplicating the arguments of the parties. The Applicant submitted that she satisfied all these criteria by virtue of her specialized mandate, extensive expertise in women’s rights and international human rights law, and commitment to impartiality. 132.In conclusion, the 4th Proposed Amicus Curiae submitted that her participation would greatly assist the court in developing jurisprudence concerning Kenya’s obligations in relation to FGM and the protection of women and girls under regional and international human rights law. She argued that her intervention would provide valuable comparative and regional perspectives necessary for a comprehensive adjudication of the issues before the court. She therefore urged the court to grant leave for her admission as amicus curiae, issue directions on the scope of her participation, and make no order as to costs. E. Issues For Determination 133.Having considered the applications and submissions on record, the following issues arise for determination:i.Whether the applicants seeking admission as amici curiae have met the legal threshold for admission as friends of the Court.ii.Whether Equality Now has met the threshold for joinder as an interested party.iii.What orders should issue as to costs? F. Analysis And Determination Whether the Applicants Seeking Admission as Amicus Curiae Have Met the Legal Threshold 134.The law regarding admission of an amicus curiae is now settled. Article 22(3)(e) of the Constitution empowers courts, in proceedings for the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms, to permit an expert to appear as a friend of the court. Rule 6 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, similarly empowers the Court to admit an amicus curiae. 135.The guiding principles governing admission of an amicus curiae were comprehensively set out by the Supreme Court in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2015] eKLR. The Court held that an intended amicus must demonstrate:a.Expertise relevant to the matters before the Court;b.Independence and impartiality;c.That the submissions intended to be advanced will aid the Court and will not merely replicate the arguments of the parties. 136.The Supreme Court stated:“An amicus ought not to be partisan. They are supposed to be neutral and guided by fidelity to the law and to the Constitution.” 137.The Court further observed that the role of an amicus curiae is to aid the Court in arriving at a just, informed, and legally sound determination. 138.The Court has examined the applications by Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya), Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), Clooney Foundation for Justice, and Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie against the foregoing principles. 139.The record demonstrates that the applicants possess extensive expertise in women’s rights, constitutional law, strategic litigation, gender justice, and international human rights law. FIDA-Kenya has, for decades, participated in advocacy and litigation concerning violence against women and harmful cultural practices and was involved in the drafting of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2011. ISLA has participated in strategic litigation before domestic and regional courts on violence against women and state obligations under international human rights law. The Clooney Foundation for Justice, through its Trial Watch and Waging Justice for Women initiatives, has monitored criminal justice systems globally and documented the impact of prosecutions on vulnerable groups, including women and girls. Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie serves as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa under the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and possesses recognized expertise in the implementation of the Maputo Protocol and African human rights standards concerning harmful cultural practices. 140.The Court is satisfied that the applicants have demonstrated specialized expertise directly relevant to the issues arising in the petition. 141.The Court is equally satisfied that the intended amici have demonstrated independence and impartiality. None of the applicants has indicated support for any particular party to the proceedings. Rather, their stated intention is to assist the Court by offering comparative and regional perspectives, international standards, and jurisprudential guidance on the protection of women and girls from violence and re-victimization. 142.The Court further notes that the applicants intend to address issues not comprehensively canvassed by the parties, including:a.comparative and international standards on criminalization of victims;b.the State’s due diligence obligations to protect survivors of violence;c.victim-centred approaches in criminal justice systems;d.transformative remedies for victims of violence;e.interpretation and implementation of the Maputo Protocol and related regional instruments; andf.comparative jurisprudence from African and international jurisdictions. 143.These proposed contributions are directly relevant to the constitutional and human rights questions before the Court and are likely to aid the Court in arriving at a comprehensive determination. 144.The Court also takes judicial notice of the immense public interest involved in this petition. The issues raised concern the implementation of anti-FGM legislation, the rights and dignity of women and girls, and the obligations of the State under domestic, regional, and international law. The outcome of the petition is likely to have significant implications not only within Kenya but also within the broader African human rights framework. 145.In the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that the applicants seeking admission as amici curiae have satisfied the legal threshold established in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2015] eKLR. 146.Accordingly, the applications by Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya), Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA), Clooney Foundation for Justice, and Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie are merited. Whether Equality Now Has Met the Threshold for Joinder as an Interested Party 147.The applicable principles governing joinder of interested parties were set out by the Supreme Court in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR. The Court held that an intended interested party must demonstrate: 148.A clearly identifiable and proximate personal interest or stake in the matter; The prejudice likely to be suffered if joinder is denied; and the nature of the submissions intended to be advanced and their relevance, while showing that such submissions will not merely replicate those of the parties. 149.The Supreme Court further elaborated on the concept of an interested party in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu [2014] eKLR, where it stated that an interested party will be affected by the decision of the Court and whose interests may not be adequately articulated unless allowed to participate. 150.The Court has considered the application by Equality Now in light of the foregoing principles. 151.The material before the Court demonstrates that Equality Now is an international human rights organization that has extensively engaged in advocacy, litigation, policy reform, and institutional collaborations concerning the eradication of FGM and the protection of survivors. The organization has participated in regional and international advocacy efforts, collaborated with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Anti-FGM Board in Kenya, and previously participated in Dr Tatu Kamau v Attorney General & Others, Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2017 concerning the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act. 152.The Court is satisfied that Equality Now has demonstrated a clear and proximate stake in the issues arising in the petition. The outcome of these proceedings is likely to affect the organization’s ongoing advocacy, policy initiatives, and survivor-centred programmes concerning FGM. 153.The Court is also satisfied that Equality Now has demonstrated the prejudice likely to be suffered if denied participation, particularly given the direct nexus between the petition and its institutional mandate concerning protection of women and girls from harmful practices and re-victimization. 154.Further, the intended contribution of Equality Now concerns the impact of prosecuting survivors of FGM, the State’s obligations under regional and international human rights law, and the implications of re-victimization through criminal prosecution. These are relevant issues which will aid the Court and are not merely duplicative of the parties’ pleadings. 155.Accordingly, the Court finds that Equality Now has satisfied the threshold for joinder as an interested party as set out in Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR. Costs 156.The general principle regarding participation of amici curiae was stated in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, where the Supreme Court observed that an amicus curiae is not entitled to costs because such participation is intended to aid the Court rather than advance personal interests. 157.Given the public interest nature of these proceedings and considering that the applications were not opposed, the Court finds it appropriate to make no order as to costs. G. Disposition 158.Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:i.The Notice of Motion dated 27th January 2026 by Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya (FIDA-Kenya) and Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) is hereby allowed, and the applicants are admitted as joint amici curiae.ii.The Notice of Motion dated 29th January 2026 by Clooney Foundation for Justice is hereby allowed, and the applicant is admitted as amicus curiae.iii.The Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 by Hon. Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie is hereby allowed, and the applicant is admitted as amicus curiae.iv.The Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 by Equality Now is hereby allowed, and the applicant is joined as an interested party.v.Directions shall issue on the filing of submissions and the scope of participation.vi.There shall be no order as to costs. 159.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAROK, THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026.…………………………………….CHARLES KARIUKIJUDGE