Advocacy Framework for
Withdrawing Reservations
to some Provisions of the
Protocol to the African
Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa
Prepared by the Special Rapporteur
on the Rights of Women in Africa
(Adopted by the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights at its
86th Ordinary Session, held from 23
February to 9 March 2026)
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Contents
Executive Summary........................................................ IV
Abbreviations and Acronyms......................................... V
Preface............................................................................. VI
PART ONE........................................................................ VII
Chapter 1: Introduction. .............................................VII
Background.............................................................VII
Justification. ............................................................VIII
Objective ................................................................IX
Chapter 2: Reservations in International Law.............X
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.....X
The Reservations Regime under
the Maputo Protocol. ............................................XI
PART TWO. ...................................................................... XIV
Chapter 3: State Parties to the Maputo Protocol
and Member States of the African Union...................XIV
Context. ................................................................XIV
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XVI
Chapter 4: The African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights...........................................................XX
Context. ................................................................XX
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXI
Chapter 5: The Special Rapporteur
on the Rights of Women in Africa. .............................XXIII
Context. ................................................................XXIII
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXIII
Chapter 6: The African Committee of Experts
on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. .....................XXIV
Context. ................................................................XXIV
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXIV
II
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 7: The African Court on
Human and Peoples’ Rights. ......................................XXVI
Context. ................................................................XXVI
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXVI
Chapter 8: Key Decision-Making
Organs of the African Union.......................................XXVII
Context. ................................................................XXVII
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXVIII
Chapter 9: The Pan-African Parliament......................XXX
Context. ................................................................XXX
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXX
Chapter 10: Regional Economic Communities. .........XXXI
Context. ................................................................XXXI
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXXI
Chapter 11: International Human Rights
Mechanisms...............................................................XXXII
Context. ................................................................XXXII
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXXII
Chapter 12: National Human Rights Institutions.........XXXIII
Context. ................................................................XXXIII
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXXIII
Chapter 13: Civil Society Organisations......................XXXIV
Context. ................................................................XXXIV
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations..........................................................XXXIV
Annex: Resolution on the Need to Raise Awareness
for States to Withdraw Reservations on some
Provisions of the Maputo Protocol................................. XXXVII
- ACHPR/Res.632 (LXXXII)..........................................XXXVII
III
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Executive Summary
The Maputo Protocol, which stands out as one of the
most progressive women’s rights instruments, was
adopted by the African Union on 11 July 2003 and
came into force on 25 November 2005. The Protocol
was developed to strengthen the provisions on gender
equality which already existed in the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter or the
Charter), and address the gaps in the Charter. Notably,
the Maputo Protocol includes provisions prohibiting
certain culturally harmful practices, including FGM,
and recognises access to safe abortion (under specific
conditions) as a women and girls’ right, thus exceeding
the protections guaranteed under other international
frameworks.
As of March 2026, forty-six (46) African Union Member
States have ratified the Maputo Protocol, with nine
States yet to ratify (Burundi, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea,
Madagascar, Niger, Somalia, Sudan, Morocco).
Moreover, nine (9) Member States (Algeria, Cameroon,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, the Sahrawi
Arab Democratic Republic, South Africa, and
Uganda) have ratified the Protocol with reservations
to some of the provisions. The reservations to the
Maputo Protocol have the effect of limiting the
obligations and accountability of reserving States. In
practice, these reservations have a significant impact
on the lives of women and girls, and often result in the
reserving States failing to take the necessary steps to
fully domesticate and implement specific provisions
of the Protocol.
The Advocacy Framework is based on the key pillars
of awareness raising, state accountability, and the
preservation of the core provisions of the Maputo
Protocol. The Advocacy Framework identifies the
key stakeholders under each pillar and makes
recommendations for each stakeholder’s role in the
withdrawal of reservations.
For this Advocacy Framework to effectively meet its
objectives, all stakeholders must take the necessary
steps to actively promote and popularise it at national
and regional levels to ensure the consistent application
of its recommendations in policy and programmatic
processes. This requires sustained collaboration
among all stakeholders to strengthen awareness,
ownership, and implementation efforts. Furthermore,
advocacy towards the universal ratification of the
Maputo Protocol without reservations must persist,
to safeguard the integrity, object and purpose of the
Protocol and ensure the full realisation and protection
of the rights of women and girls in Africa.
Through the ACHPR Resolution 632 (LXXXII) 2025, the
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
mandated the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Women in Africa (SRRWA) to develop the Advocacy
Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some
Provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women
in Africa (the Advocacy Framework). Beyond raising
awareness for lifting reservations on some provisions
of the Maputo Protocol, the Advocacy Framework
aims to achieve the total withdrawal of these
reservations to ensure full and uniform protection for
women and girls’ rights in Africa, and to provide the
necessary encouragement to Member States on the
withdrawal of reservations to some provisions of the
Maputo Protocol. Furthermore, it provides guidance
to various key stakeholders to support the adaptation
and strengthening of advocacy strategies aimed at
promoting the withdrawal of reservations.
IV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACDEG: African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance
ACHPR: African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
ACRWC: African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
Advocacy Framework: Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions
of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in
Africa
African Commission: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
African Court: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
APRM: African Peer Review Mechanism
AU: African Union
AUC: African Union Commission
CEDAW: Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Committee of Experts: African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
CSOs: Civil Society Organisations
EAC: East African Community
ECOSOCC: Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union
ECOWAS: Economic Community of West African States
FGM: Female Genital Mutilation
ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ILC: International Law Commission
Maputo Protocol: Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa
NANHRI: Network of African National Human Rights Institutions
NGOs: Non-Governmental Organisations
NHRIs: National Human Rights Institutions
PAP: Pan-African Parliament
PRC: Permanent Representatives Committee
RECs: Regional Economic Communities
SADC: Southern Africa Development Community
SADR: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Solemn Declaration: Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa
Special Rapporteur: Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa
UN: United Nations
UPR: Universal Periodic Review
VCLT: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
V
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Preface
Since its establishment in
1998, the Office of the Special
Rapporteur on the Rights of
Women in Africa (SRRWA) has
served as a focal point within the
African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (African
Commission) for promoting and
protecting the rights of women
and girls in the Continent, as
enshrined in the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo
Protocol) and other regional instruments. Through this
mandate, the SRRWA has played a central role in providing
critical support to African Union Member States in aligning
their national legal frameworks, policies, and institutions
with the standards set out in the regional legal frameworks,
thus advancing the full recognition and realisation of
women’s rights across the continent.
The Maputo Protocol, which was adopted by the African
Union (AU) on 11th July 2003, has served as a transformative
legal framework, outlining standards and norms on the
rights of women and girls in Africa. For over two decades,
it has provided a comprehensive normative framework for
eliminating discrimination, addressing harmful practices,
promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights,
strengthening access to justice, and ensuring women’s equal
participation in all spheres of life. Significant progress has
been made in the ratification of the Maputo Protocol. As
of December 2025, 46 out of 55 AU Member States have
ratified the Maputo Protocol, reflecting strong continental
endorsement of its principles and objectives.
However, 9 AU Member States (Algeria, Cameroon,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, the Sahrawi Arab
Democratic Republic, South Africa, and Uganda) have
placed reservations to various critical provisions of the
Maputo Protocol, including Articles 6, 7, 10, 14, and 21.
Reservations, particularly those relating to marriage,
inheritance, health, and reproductive rights, and the
elimination of harmful practices, create inconsistencies
between regional obligations and domestic legal systems,
and more critically, deny women and girls the full protection
envisioned by the Protocol. Encouragingly, positive
examples from States such as The Gambia, Mauritius, and
Rwanda, which have withdrawn reservations to the Maputo
Protocol, demonstrate that the withdrawal of reservations
is possible, achievable, and impactful.
Against this backdrop, and pursuant to Resolution 632
adopted by the African Commission during its 82nd
Ordinary Session in March 2025, the SRRWA was mandated
to develop an Advocacy Framework to support States and
stakeholders in advancing the withdrawal of reservations to
some provisions of the Maputo Protocol. This Framework
has been developed through a consultative and collaborative
process, drawing on the expertise of legal experts, human
rights practitioners, and advocates from across the
Continent, and in partnership with Equality Now and the
Solidarity for African Women’s Rights (SOAWR) Coalition.
The Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations
to some provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in
Africa aims to inform advocacy and State processes for the
withdrawal of reservations to the Protocol in accordance
with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (1969). The Advocacy Framework will aim to
achieve this by guiding AU Member States with reservations
to initiate or accelerate national processes towards
withdrawing their reservations to the Maputo Protocol, and
offer women’s rights advocates and experts a requisite tool
to engage their Governments on advocacy for withdrawing
reservations and the full implementation of the Maputo
Protocol. Overall, this Advocacy Framework shall guide the
withdrawal of reservations to the Maputo Protocol grounded
in the realities and responding to the complex interplay of
law, culture, politics, and institutional capacity that often
shape States’ decisions regarding reservations.
The Advocacy Framework reflects SRRWA’s firm commitment
to advancing the full realisation of women’s and girls’ rights
through the lifting of reservations to the Maputo Protocol. It
is both a strategic guide and a call to collective action, urging
states, national human rights institutions, civil society,
and communities to align legal commitments with lived
realities. By grounding advocacy in evidence, collaboration,
and accountability, SRRWA envisions a future in which the
Maputo Protocol is implemented without limitation and
where the dignity, equality, and autonomy of women and
girls across the region are fully respected and protected.
Honourable Commissioner Janet Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie,
Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa
VI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
PART ONE
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
1.
2.
3.
The
Advocacy
Framework
for
Withdrawing
Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol to
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on
the Rights of Women in Africa (Advocacy Framework)
has been developed in conformity with ACHPR Res.
632: “Resolution on the Need to Raise Awareness for
States to Withdraw Reservations on Some Provisions
of the Maputo Protocol”.1 The African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission)
adopted Resolution 632 in accordance with Article 45
of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(African Charter), which empowers the Commission
to formulate and lay down principles and rules to
solve legal problems relating to human and peoples’
rights and fundamental freedoms upon which African
Governments may base their legislation.2
The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in
Africa (Special Rapporteur) led the development of
the Advocacy Framework, in conformity with the
mandate conferred on her by the African Commission3
of assisting African governments to develop and
implement policies on the promotion and protection
of the rights of women, in line with the domestication
of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
(Maputo Protocol).
Specifically, the Special Rapporteur is mandated by the
African Commission to:
◆ Undertake promotion and fact-finding missions in
AU Member States, to disseminate the AU’s human
rights instruments, and to investigate the situation of
women’s rights;
◆ Follow up on the implementation of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and
the Maputo Protocol in relation to the rights of women
in Africa, notably by preparing reports on the situation
of women’s rights and proposing recommendations to
be adopted by the African Commission;
◆ Propose resolutions for adoption by the Commission
on the situation of women in various countries, as
appropriate;
◆ Undertake comparative studies on the situation of
women’s rights in various African countries; and
◆ Collaborate with relevant actors responsible for the
promotion and protection of the rights of women
internationally, regionally and nationally, including
national government departments responsible for
gender issues, intergovernmental organisations, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and national
human rights institutions (NHRIs), and other Special
Rapporteurs from the United Nations (UN) and other
regional human rights systems.4
4.
The Special Rapporteur developed the Advocacy
Framework in collaboration with Equality Now,5 and
the Solidarity for African Women’s Rights Coalition
(SOAWR).6
◆ Assist governments to develop and implement policies
on the promotion and protection of the rights of women
in Africa, particularly in line with the domestication of
the Maputo Protocol and the general harmonisation
of national legislation to the rights guaranteed in the
Protocol;
1 ACHPR/Res.632 (LXXXII) “Resolution on the Need to Raise Awareness for States to Withdraw Reservations on Some Provisions of the Maputo Protocol” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 14 March 2025.
2 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Organisation of African Unity, 1981).
3 ACHPR/res.38 (XXV) 99, “Appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights, May 1999).
4 Ibid.
5 See Equality Now (accessible here.)
6 See SOAWR (accessible here.)
VII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Justification
5.
The Maputo Protocol,7 the first binding regional legal
framework on women’s rights in Africa, was adopted
by the African Union (AU) on 11 July 2003 in Maputo,
Mozambique, and entered into force on 25 November
2005. 46 of the 55 Member States of the AU are party
to the Protocol.8 Nine states have reservations to
various provisions of the Protocol. These are Algeria,
Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia,
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), South
Africa and Uganda.9
6.
When Member States of the AU ratify or accede
to the Maputo Protocol, they agree to be bound in
law to implement the obligations established in the
instrument. The past two decades have seen significant
advances in the rights of women established in the
Protocol. These include historic judicial decisions
affirming the prohibition of female genital mutilation
(FGM); finding states accountable for failing to protect
women from gender-based violence; protecting
girls from child marriage; and affirming the right to
education for pregnant girls.10
7.
Yet, the impacts of reservations to the Maputo Protocol
on the lives of women are grave. Women in states with
reservations cannot exercise fully the rights guaranteed
to them under the Protocol, covering matters such as
the right to marry, the rights to divorce, separation and
annulment, and the right to sexual and reproductive
health. These adverse impacts are even more
aggravated when gender intersects with the grounds of
age (girls, youth and older women), disability (women
with disabilities), ethnicity, race, indigenous women,
and sexual and gender minorities.
Impacts of Reservations on the Exercise of Women’s
Rights
Studies across the nine States with reservations
to the Maputo Protocol highlight how policy, laws
and regulations anchored on the reservations have
undermined women’s prospects for the full exercise of
rights. For example:
◆ Algeria’s reservations to Article 6(g) and (h) of the
Protocol promote sexism in its nationality laws,
thereby denying women and girls their basic human
rights. The reservations foster damaging stereotypes
and outdated gender norms, impeding progress to a
more inclusive and equitable society.11
◆ The impact of Kenya’s reservation against medical
abortion leaves women and girls to procure unsafe
abortions, increasing cases of maternal mortality
in the country.12 Unsafe abortions are the leading
cause of maternal mortality, with an estimated 266
women dying per 100,000 unsafe abortions.13
◆ Uganda’s reservation against medical abortion in
situations of rape limits the choices of survivors
who become pregnant as a consequence of assault.
Rape survivors who are compelled to carry their
pregnancies to term face additional physical and
mental health hazards.14 Women who conceive
as a result of rape or incest seek out abortions in
secrecy15 and therefore face many risks, including
death due to severe haemorrhage, development of
infections and sepsis from the use of unsterilized
instruments, and incomplete abortions which can
introduce bacteria to the uterus, potentially causing
organ damage and infertility.16
◆ Mauritius’
reservation
against
positive
discrimination in preference to formal equality
undermines equal opportunities for women.
Despite over 50% female enrolment in secondary
and tertiary education, women comprise only five
per cent of doctoral students in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) courses.17
7 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (African Union, 2003).
8 African Union, List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa” (accessible here.)
9 Ibid.
10 “Maputo at 20: Undimmed Resolve - Advancing and Protecting the Rights of Women and Girls in Africa” (Amnesty International, Equality Now,
FIGO, and SOAWR, 9 August 2023).
11 “The State We’re In: Ending Sexism in Nationality Laws (Equality Now, 2022) 17.
12 “The Right to Choose: A Report on the Impact of Government Reservations on Reproductive Rights under the Maputo Protocol in Kenya” (Coalition
on Violence against Women, 2024).
13 “Advisory on the Removal of Kenya’s Reservation on Article 14(2)(c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa” (Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, 2021) 6.
14 Dr Simon Peter Kayondo, on implementing the Maputo Protocol in Uganda, 11 July 2023, (accessible here.)
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 M Madhou, K Fowdar, D N Modi and B S Moosun, “STEM Education in the Republic of Mauritius: a Gender Perspective,” (Mauritius Research Repository, 2021) 13.
VIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
8.
In Resolution 632, the African Commission recognises
that the effective implementation and domestication
of the Maputo Protocol would have positive impacts on
the lives of women and advance gender equality on the
continent. The Commission, however, also recognises
that some State Parties to the Maputo Protocol have
made reservations on some provisions of the Protocol,
consequently limiting full realisation of the rights
guaranteed under the Protocol. In addition, some of
the reservations undermine the Protocol’s fundamental
purpose and essence, thereby impeding the Protocol’s
capacity to provide effective and substantial safeguards
to women’s rights across the continent. This is the
context within which the African Commission has
found it necessary to prepare an Advocacy Framework
to raise awareness on the need for the universal
application of all the provisions of the Maputo Protocol
to enable women across the continent to access its
protections fully.18
12. The Advocacy Framework provides guidance to the
following stakeholders:
◆ Member States of the AU;
◆ State Parties to the Maputo Protocol;
◆ The Special Rapporteur;
◆ The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and
Welfare of the Child (Committee of Experts);
◆ The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(African Court);
◆ The key organs of the AU, including the Assembly of
the Union, the Executive Council, the Permanent
Representatives Committee (PRC), and the African
Union Commission (AUC);
Objective
◆ The Pan-African Parliament (PAP);
9.
◆ The Regional Economic Communities (RECs), their
legislatures, and their courts of justice;
The objective of the Advocacy Framework is to raise
awareness on the need for the universal application of
all the provisions of the Maputo Protocol, by providing
State Parties to the Protocol and other stakeholders
with guidance on the standards and approach for
withdrawing reservations to the Protocol.
10. The Advocacy Framework establishes a systematic
approach to problem-solving in relation to the
reservations that have been lodged on the Maputo
Protocol. It provides various relevant actors with
guidance on the measures they may take to develop and
implement strategies towards ensuring the withdrawal
of reservations.
11. Each stakeholder may draw ideas from the Advocacy
Framework and use them to build or adapt their
strategies on the withdrawal of reservations. The
Framework provides context in relation to each
stakeholder category before suggesting approaches
which may be used to make the case for and take actions
towards the withdrawal of reservations. Elements of
suggested approaches are not mutually exclusive and
may be used singly or in combination with each other.
Elements explained under particular stakeholder
categories may also be relevant for other stakeholders.
◆ National human rights institutions (NHRIs);
◆ International human rights bodies; and
◆ CSOs.
13. Following the adoption of Res. 692 by the African
Commission, a literature review on the meaning and
implications of the reservations that State Parties
have made to the Maputo Protocol was undertaken
under the guidance of the Special Rapporteur. The
Special Rapporteur had already established a cohort of
experts drawn from across the continent to provide the
process with technical support. Once a draft Advocacy
Framework was prepared under her guidance, the
Special Rapporteur called on state and non-state actors
to provide their feedback on the draft. Subsequently,
a regional consultation workshop and validation
workshop were held via webinar.
18 Preamble of ACHPR/Res.632, n1.
IX
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 2: Reservations in
International Law
The Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties
14. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)
establishes the meaning of reservations in international
law. Over time, this has been elaborated by institutions
such as the International Law Commission (ILC), and
the supervisory committees of treaties such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).19
15. Under the VCLT, a reservation is:
a unilateral statement, however phrased
or named, made by a State, when signing,
ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to
a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to
modify the legal effect of certain provisions of
the treaty in their application to that State.20
16. In determining whether a State Party to a treaty has
lodged a reservation, what matters is the intention of
the State rather than the form of the instrument. As
the supervisory mechanism of the ICCPR, the Human
Rights Committee, explains:
17. For purposes of this Advocacy Framework, it is essential
to distinguish between reservations and interpretive
declarations. According to the ILC, an interpretive
declaration is:
A unilateral statement, however phrased or
named, made by a State or an international
organization, whereby that State or that
organization purports to specify or clarify the
meaning or scope of a treaty or of certain of its
provisions.22
18. Unlike a reservation, an interpretive declaration does
not purport to exclude or modify the legal effects of a
treaty. Rather, it seeks to clarify the meaning of certain
provisions or of the entire treaty.23
19. A State Party to a treaty has the right in international
law to object to a reservation lodged by another State
Party. Under the VCLT, once a State Party is notified of
a reservation to a treaty or once it has ratified a treaty,
whichever is the latter, it has 12 months within which
to lodge an objection if it deems the reservation to be
incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.24
Additionally, a State Party to a treaty may withdraw or
amend a reservation in writing at any time, and a State
may similarly withdraw or amend an objection.25
If a statement, irrespective of its name or
title, purports to exclude or modify the legal
effect of a treaty in its application to the
State, it constitutes a reservation. Conversely,
if a so-called reservation merely offers a
State’s understanding of a provision but does
not exclude or modify that provision in its
application to that State, it is, in reality, not a
reservation.21
19 For a detailed study on the approaches taken by various international bodies to develop the meaning and purports of reservations in international
law, see Olivier De Schutter, International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2019) 119-142.
20 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) art2(1)(d).
21 CCPR General Comment No. 24, “Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols
Thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant”, (Human Rights Committee, 1994) para 4.
22 “Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Sixty-Third Session: Guide to Practice on Reservations on Treaties” (International
Law Commission, 2011) para 1.2.
23 Treaty Handbook (United Nations, 2013) para 3.6.
24 VCLT art20, n20.
25 Ibid, art22.
X
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
The Reservations Regime under the Maputo
Protocol
20. The Maputo Protocol establishes a comprehensive
and progressive legal and institutional framework
for ensuring women’s rights on the continent.
It supplements the provisions of the ACHPR by
elaborating on the rights of women. It seeks to protect
them from discrimination and harmful practices and
to ensure that they enjoy their rights fully.
21. The Maputo Protocol obligates State Parties to combat
all forms of discrimination against women through
legislative, institutional and other measures. Among
others, the Protocol guarantees women the rights to
dignity and the right to life, and it obligates States to
eliminate harmful practices. It legislates for women’s
equal rights in marriage, and their rights during
separation, divorce or annulment of marriage. The
Protocol also establishes that women have the right to
sexual and reproductive health.
22. Neither the Maputo Protocol nor its antecedent, the
ACHPR, have express provisions on reservations.
This is unlike CEDAW, which allows State Parties to
enter reservations upon ratification as long as those
reservations are not incompatible with the “object and
purpose” of the Convention.26 The jurist Keba Mbaye
recalled that when the ACHPR was being drafted,
proposals to include a reservation clause were made
by the Central African Republic, Congo and Niger.
Delegates, he noted, rejected these proposals because
they found the matter was adequately covered under
the VCLT, which anticipates that a State Party may
withdraw from a treaty that does not expressly prohibit
reservations.27
24. The African Commission, which oversees the
implementation of the Maputo Protocol, has
determined that it has the power to assess the validity
of reservations to the treaties it oversees. In Hossam
Ezzat and Rania Enayet (represented by Egyptian Initiative
for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS) v The Arab Republic of
Egypt, the Commission stated thus:
The Commission has the competence, in
accordance with its mandate, to assess and
pronounce its views on the validity of a
reservation to the Charter. A valid reservation
to a treaty forms part of the terms of the
treaty with respect to the authoring State and
other states parties which have not registered
repudiatory objections to the reservation.
The Commission’s functional competence
to interpret and consider the validity of a
reservation is inherent in the Commission’s
very function of interpreting and applying the
Charter to ensure the protection of the rights
and freedoms.29
25. The African Commission, therefore, seems to follow
the view30 that an invalid reservation should be
severable so that a treaty remains in effect without
providing benefit to a state that lodges a reservation
deemed invalid. The Commission has, however, as yet
not severed a reservation for incompatibility with a
human rights treaty.
26. Presently, nine States have lodged reservations to the
Maputo Protocol on provisions covering matters such as
equality, marriage, separation, divorce and annulment,
affirmative action, and sexual and reproductive health.
23. Hence, save where a treaty explicitly excludes
reservations, such as the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court,28 a State Party may make
a reservation on a treaty so long as the reservation is
not incompatible with the object and purpose of the
treaty.
26 Article 28 of Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (United Nations 1979).
27 Keba Mbaye, “Keynote Address on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”, in Human and Peoples’ Rights in Africa and the African Charter
(International Commission of Jurists, 1985).
It should, however, be noted that the African Union Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls, which the AU adopted in 2025, makes
express provisions on reservations. Article 19 of the Convention provides that a Member State of the AU may submit a reservation on any provision of
the Convention when it is ratifying or acceding to it, so long as the reservation is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
28 Article 120 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (United Nations 1998), provides as follows: “No reservations may be made to this
Statute.”.
29 Communication 355/07: Hossam Ezzat and Rania Enayet (represented by Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS) v The Arab Republic of Egypt (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2016) para154.
30 Articulated by the Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 24, see para 18, n21.
XI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
States with Reservations and Interpretive Declarations to the Maputo Protocol as of January 202531
State
Date of
Ratification/
Accession
Provisions with Reservations
Provisions with
Interpretive Declarations
Algeria
2016
Article 6; Article 7; and Article 14
-
Cameroon
2012
-
General
Ethiopia
2018
Article 6 (c), (d) and (f); Article 7(a);
Article 10(3); Article 21(1); and Article 27
Article 4(2) Article 6 (b), ( j);
Article 7(d); Article 13(i);
and Article 14(1)(b)
Kenya
2010
Article 10(3); and Article 14(2)(c)
Mauritius
2017
Article 4(2)(k); Article 6(c); Article 9;
Article 10(2)(d); Article 11(3); Article
12(2); and 14(2)(c)
-
Namibia
2004
Article 6(d)
-
SADR
2022
Article 2(c); Article 6 (a), (b), (c) and (e);
Article 7 (b) and (d); Article 8 (d) and
(e); Article 14 (1)((a), (b), (c), and (2) (c);
Article 19(a); and Article 21
-
South Africa
2004
Article 4( j); Article 6(d) and (h)
Articles 1(f); and Article 31
Uganda
2010
Article 14 (1)(a), and (2)(c)
-
31 Information for this table is drawn from official websites of AU organs, including African Union, “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/
Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8. A number of reservations seem
either to be miscited or they are not cited at all in published AU records.
XII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
27. The reservations made by the nine states cover a broad
range of themes. Four reservations are made to Article
14(2)(c) of the Protocol on medical abortion (Kenya,
Mauritius, SADR and Uganda). Three reservations
are made, each to Article 6(c) on monogamy as the
preferred form of marriage (Ethiopia, Mauritius and
SADR), and Article 6(d) on recording of marriages
(Ethiopia, Namibia and South Africa). Two reservations
are made, each to Article 6(b) on the minimum age of
marriage (Ethiopia and SADR), Article 7(d) on equitable
sharing of joint property (Ethiopia and SADR), Article
10(3) on reduction of military expenditure (Ethiopia
and Kenya), Article 14(1)(a) on control of fertility (SADR
and Uganda), and Article 14(1)(b) on right to decide
whether to have children etc (Ethiopia and SADR).
Around 28 other single reservations and interpretive
declarations are made.
28. The case has increasingly been made by stakeholders
across the continent for the universal withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol, to ensure that
Africa’s women enjoy their rights under the Protocol
fully.
Three States have withdrawn reservations to the
Maputo Protocol
◆ In 2006, The Gambia withdrew its blanket
reservations to Articles 5 (elimination of harmful
practices), 6 (marriage), 7 (separation, divorce
and annulment of marriage) and 14 (health and
reproductive rights) of the Maputo Protocol,
which it had lodged in 2005. The reservations were
withdrawn following intense advocacy by CSOs
whose campaign took advantage of the facts that The
Gambia was hosting the AU Summit as well as the
Beijing +10 Review Conference.32 The withdrawal
of these reservations had positive impacts on
women’s rights. For example, having withdrawn its
reservation to Article 5 of the Protocol on harmful
cultural practices, The Gambia enacted legislation
to criminalise FGM with penal and monetary
sanctions.33
◆ In 2012, Rwanda withdrew its reservation to
Article 14(2)(c) of the Maputo Protocol,34 following
advocacy by national and international CSOs.35 This
withdrawal followed the enactment of legislation
reducing penalties against women who terminated
their pregnancies and doctors who performed
abortions.36 Consequently, women in Rwanda can
access abortions on socioeconomic grounds, in
cases where the mother’s life or health is at risk,
where the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault,
rape or incest, and where there is a health risk to
the fetus.37
◆ Through its notice of withdrawal of 10 April 2023,
Mauritius withdrew its reservation to Article 6(b) of
the Protocol, which provides that the minimum age
of marriage is 18 years.38 Mauritius did not give any
reasons for the withdrawal.
32 “Maputo at 20: Undimmed Resolve - Advancing and Protecting the Rights of Women and Girls in Africa”, Equality Now, n10.
33 Basiru Bah, “The Impact of the Maputo Protocol in The Gambia”, in Susan Mutambasere, Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz and Davina Murden (eds), The
Impact of the Maputo Protocol in Selected African States (Pretoria University Law Press, 2023) 117-118.
34 Official Gazette Special of 04/05/2012 (accessible here.)
35 “Maputo at 20: Undimmed Resolve - Advancing and Protecting the Rights of Women and Girls in Africa” n10.
36 “Rwandan Govt Takes Critical Step in Recognizing Women’s Fundamental Human Rights” (Centre for Reproductive Rights, 15 August 2012).
37 Ibid.
38 Communication from Embassy of Mauritius Permanent Mission to the African Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa,
LS6112023 (AA/ACHPR/01). Also see “Eleventh Periodic Report of the Republic of Mauritius on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights September 2019 — March 2024” (Republic of Mauritius, 2024).
XIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
PART TWO
29. This part introduces and explains the key components
and elements of the Advocacy Framework. It discusses
the measures which relevant stakeholders should put
in place or keep in mind as they seek the withdrawal
of reservations to the Maputo Protocol. The Advocacy
Framework explains the contexts within which the
roles of each stakeholder should be understood, and it
proposes the approach which each institution should
take to support the withdrawal of reservations to the
Protocol.
Chapter 3: State Parties to the
Maputo Protocol and Member
States of the African Union
Context
30. As indicated in Chapter 2, 46 of the 55 Member States of
the AU are party to the Maputo Protocol. 37 of the State
Parties to the Protocol have not lodged any reservations
to it, and hence they are bound fully by all its provisions.
33. Some State Parties explain that certain provisions of
the Maputo Protocol contravene Islamic law. SADR
has used this justification to make reservations on
provisions covering Article 2(c) (integration of gender
perspective), Article 6(a) (free and full consent of
parties in marriage), Article 6(b) (minimum age of
marriage), Article 6(c) (monogamy as preferred form of
marriage), Article 6(e) (matrimonial regime and place
of residence), Article 7(b) (rights to seek separation,
etc), Article 7(d) (equitable sharing of joint property),
Article 8(e) (representation of women in judicial
organs), Article 14(1)(a) (control of fertility), Article
14(1)(b) (right to decide whether to have children,
etc), Article 14(1)(c) (contraception), Article 14(2)(c)
(medical abortion), and Article 21 (inheritance).41
34. Some State Parties use reservations to subordinate
provisions in the Maputo Protocol to domestic
legislation:
◆ Although Algeria gives no reasons for its reservations
to provisions in the Maputo Protocol on marriage,
separation, divorce and annulment, and health and
reproductive rights,42 its explanation for making
reservations to some equivalent provisions in CEDAW
is that those provisions contradict relevant domestic
legislation.43
31. No State Party to the Maputo Protocol has objected to
reservations lodged by other State Parties.39 This may
evidence the disinclination of the States to interfere with
the sovereignty of peer States, possibly correspondingly
expecting that their peers will not interfere with their
sovereignty. Yet, under the Constitutive Act of the
African Union, Member States commit the Union to
promote and protect human and peoples’ rights in
accordance with the ACHPR and other relevant human
rights instruments,40 including the Maputo Protocol.
◆ One of Ethiopia’s reservations subordinates the
application of Article 4(2)(a) on “unwanted or forced
sex” to the relevant provision of its Criminal Code on
the crime of rape.44
32. States provide a broad range of reasons to explain their
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
◆ Ethiopia’s reservation on Article 21(1) (on equitable
share to inheritance), subjects the application of the
provision in the Protocol to domestic law, so that a
◆ In another reservation, Ethiopia restricts the application
of Article 6(b) (which sets 18 years as the minimum age
of marriage, requiring that it be applied in accordance
with its family law, which allows dispensation from this
minimum age of marriage.45
39 In comparison, multiple objections have over the years been raised against State Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Objections have been raised on reservations made on CEDAW by African States, including Algeria, Egypt,
Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger and Tunisia.
40 Constitutive Act of the African Union, art3(h) (African Union, 2000).
Under Article 5 of the Constitutive Act, the AU’s organs include the Union’s Assembly, the Executive Council, the Pan African Parliament, the African
Union Commission, the Permanent Representatives Committee, the Specialised Technical Committees, and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council.
41 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
42 Ibid.
43 UNTC (accessible here.)
44 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
45 Ibid. For an assessment of Ethiopia’s reservations to the Maputo Protocol, see Henok Ashagrey, “The Impact of the Maputo Protocol in Ethiopia”, in
Susan Mutambasere, Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz and Davina Murden (eds), The Impact of the Maputo Protocol in Selected African States, n33.
XIV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
spouse inherits from their deceased spouse as a legatee
by will.46
◆ Mauritius declines to enforce Article 6(c) of the Protocol
(on monogamy as the preferred form of marriage)
where the provision is incompatible with provisions of
domestic laws.47
◆ Mauritius also declines to enforce Article 12(2) (on
positive action), on the basis that its Constitution does
not recognise positive discrimination.48
◆ Additionally, it makes a reservation on Article 14(2)(c)
(on medical abortion) where a pregnancy has exceeded
14 weeks.49
◆ Kenya and Uganda make reservations on Article 14(2(c)
of the Maputo Protocol (on medical abortion), deeming
that provision inconsistent with their domestic
legislation on health and reproductive rights.50
◆ Cameroon contends that the Maputo Protocol has
provisions that are inconsistent with African ethical
and moral values. In its interpretive declaration
(which seems to have the legal effect of a reservation),
Cameroon explains that its acceptance of the Protocol
does not mean that it endorses, encourages or
promotes homosexuality, non-therapeutic abortion,
FGM, prostitution or any other practice which is not
consistent with universal or African ethical and moral
values.51
35. Related to the above, some State Parties to the Maputo
Protocol contend that their domestic laws are superior
to the norms established in the Protocol and, therefore,
they are not bound by the apparently lower standards
in the instrument:
◆ South Africa makes its reservation on Article 4(2)
( j) (prohibiting application of the death penalty on
pregnant women) on the basis that the death penalty
was abolished in the country.52
◆ South Africa makes its reservation to Article 6(h) (on
the nationality of children) of the Maputo Protocol on
the basis that the Protocol subjugates the equal rights
of men and women with respect to the nationality of
their children to national legislation and national
security interests, thereby removing inherent rights of
citizenship and nationality from children.53
◆ South Africa’s reservation to the Maputo Protocol on
Article 6(d) (on recording marriages), and Ethiopia’s
similar reservation, are based on the concern that a
marriage should not be deemed invalid simply because
it has not been recorded.54
◆ Ethiopia limits the application of Article 7(a) to the
Protocol (on separation of spouses being effected
by judicial order) to domestic legislation which
permits spouses to separate by agreement.55 In its
periodic report to the African Commission, Ethiopia
communicated that its reservations and interpretive
declarations to the Protocol did not, in its view, impede
realisation of women’s rights, and rather that the
reservations provided better protection for the rights
and freedoms of women, concluding that it did not
have plans to withdraw the reservations.56
36. Some State Parties to the Maputo Protocol make
reservations of an interim nature to be withdrawn
after specific requisite measures are put in place.
46 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
47 Ibid. For an assessment of Mauritius’s reservations to the Maputo Protocol, see Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz, “The Impact of the Maputo Protocol in
Mauritius”, in Susan Mutannbasere, Ashwanee Budoo-Scholtz and Davina Murden (eds), The Impact of the Maputo Protocol in Selected African States,
n33.
48 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
49 Ibid.
50 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
51 Ibid.
52 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8. Also see “Republic of South Africa Combined Second Periodic Report Under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and
Initial Report Under the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa” (Republic of South Africa, 2015). For an assessment of South
Africa’s reservations to the Protocol, see Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi, “The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa: South Africa’s Reservations and Interpretative Declarations” (2008) Law, Democracy and Development, Vol. 12 No. 2.
53 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
54 Ibid.
55 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
56 “Ethiopia Initial Report on the Implementation of the Protocol on the Rights of Women (Maputo Protocol)” (January 2024) para 28.
XV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Namibia makes the withdrawal of its reservation on
Article 6(d) (on recording of marriages) contingent
on the enactment of legislation on the recording and
registration of customary marriages.57
the State in law, and hence a legal basis exists for the
State to eventually withdraw the reservations. Member
States should, however, seek parliamentary authority
before placing reservations to a treaty.
37. Some State Parties to the Maputo Protocol either do
not provide any reasons for their reservations or they
provide overly ambiguous or unclear reasons. This is
the case with:
39. Imperative of becoming party to a treaty without
reservations: A Member State of the AU should, however,
also recognise the immense benefits of becoming
party to the Maputo Protocol without reservations. It is
essential that States that are not party to the Maputo
Protocol ratify or accede to it expeditiously and without
reservations. In that regard, of the nine Member States
of the AU that have not ratified the Maputo Protocol,
only two have also not ratified CEDAW – Somalia and
Sudan.60 Hence, there is no compelling reason for the
other seven Member States not to become party to
the Maputo Protocol – Burundi, Chad, Egypt, Eritrea,
Madagascar, Morocco and Niger.61
◆ Algeria’s reservations on Articles 6 (marriage, 7
(divorce, separation and annulment) and 14 (sexual
and reproductive health).
◆ Mauritius’s reservations on Article 4(2)(k) (equal rights
to access refugee status), Article 9 (participation in
political and decision-making process), and Article
11(3) (protecting asylum-seeking women, etc., from
violence).
◆ Ethiopia’s reservations to Article 6(c) (monogamy
preferred form of marriage), Article 6(f) (retention
of maiden name), Article 10(3) (reduction of military
expenditure), and Article 27 (interpretation).
◆ Kenya’s reservation to Article 10(3) (reduction of
military expenditure).
◆ Uganda’s reservation to Article 14(1)(a) (control of
fertility).58
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
38. Prerogative to become party to a treaty with
reservations: A Member State of the AU has the
prerogative to determine whether to become party to a
human rights treaty and whether to make reservations
as it ratifies or accedes to it. As was pointed out at a
convening by Universal Rights Group on the withdrawal
of religion-based reservations in core human rights
treaties, the ratification of or accession to a treaty, the
withdrawal of reservations, and the domestication,
implementation and monitoring of the treaty are
all part of one cycle/process whose key starting
point is becoming party to the instrument even with
reservations.59 Hence, where a Member State of the
AU ratifies a treaty with reservations, the treaty binds
40. Interpretive declarations as a valve for managing
the pressure to lodge reservations: In the immediate
term, if a Member State of the AU finds it difficult to
become party to the Maputo Protocol without recording
its viewpoints on certain provisions, it should lodge an
interpretive declaration that does not change the legal
effect of the provision in question, instead of entering a
reservation on the provision.
41. Reservations as an interim measure: In the very
last resort, a Member State of the AU may enter a
reservation to a provision of the Maputo Protocol on
an interim basis if that is the only avenue for enabling
the State to ratify or accede to the Protocol. The State
should establish measures for addressing the interim
circumstances engendering the reservation, following
which it should withdraw the reservation expeditiously.
Measures for addressing the interim circumstances
may involve establishing genuinely participatory
processes to build the public’s awareness of the impacts
of the reservations and the imperative for withdrawing
them. Such measures should also entail building the
capacities of public institutions on the impacts of the
reservations and the imperative for withdrawing them.
57 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
58 Ibid.
59 “Lifting Religion-Based Reservations to the Core International Human Rights Conventions as a Means of Strengthening Women’s Rights at the National Level: A Guide for Women’s Rights Groups” (Universal Rights Group, 2019).
60 United Nations Treaty Collection (accessible here.)
61 Morocco is not a party to the African Charter.
XVI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
42. Withdrawal of reservations: A State Party with
reservations to the Maputo Protocol should institute
measures for withdrawing them. Such measures should
involve relevant domestic institutions, including the
executive, parliament, and the general public. The State
Party should heed directions and determinations duly
issued by domestic courts and international tribunals.
It should ensure that the public, particularly women,
participate fully in the discussions.
43. Objection to reservations: State Parties should review
reservations lodged to the Maputo Protocol by fellow
State Parties. They should, accordingly, raise objections
where they deem that the reservations are incompatible
with the core aims of the Protocol. As illustrated below,
raising an objection can have the positive impact of
encouraging a State Party to withdraw its reservation
to a treaty.
Lesotho – Reservations, Objections and Modifications
When Lesotho ratified CEDAW on 22 August 1995, it lodged the following reservation on the instrument:
The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 2 to the
extent that it conflicts with Lesotho’s constitutional stipulations relative to succession to the throne of the
Kingdom of Lesotho and law relating to succession to chieftainship. The Lesotho Government’s ratification
is subject to the understanding that none of its obligations under the Convention, especially in article 2 (e),
shall be treated as extending to the affairs of religious denominations. Furthermore, the Lesotho Government
declares it shall not take any legislative measures under the Convention where those measures would be
incompatible with the Constitution of Lesotho.62
On 12 February 1997, Denmark had lodged the following objection to Lesotho’s reservation:
The Government of Denmark finds that the said reservations are covering central provisions of the
Convention. Furthermore, it is a general principle of international law that internal law may not be invoked as
justification for failure to perform treaty obligations. The Government of Denmark finds that the reservations
are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and accordingly inadmissible and without
effect under international law. Consequently, the Government of Denmark objects to these reservations.
It is the opinion of the Government of Denmark that no time limit applies to objections against reservations,
which are inadmissible under international law.
The Convention remains in force in its entirety between Lesotho and Denmark.
The Government of Denmark recommends the Government of Lesotho to reconsider its reservations to the
[said] Convention.63
On 25 August 2004, Lesotho communicated to the UN Secretary-General modification of its reservation as follows:
The Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho declares that it does not consider itself bound by article 2 to the
extent that it conflicts with Lesotho’s constitutional stipulations relative to succession to the throne of the
Kingdom of Lesotho and law relating to succession to chieftainship.64
62 Reservations to CEDAW (accessible here.)
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
XVII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
44. Invalid or incompatible reservations: A State Party
to the Maputo Protocol must not lodge an invalid
reservation – a reservation that is incompatible with
the purpose and object of the Protocol. A reservation is
deemed invalid if:
◆ It seeks to derogate from a peremptory norm. A
peremptory norm, also known as a jus cogens norm,
is a norm of international law reflecting high moral
standards and considered universally binding whether
or not a state has agreed to it specifically. A peremptory
norm is non-derogable, and includes norms such as the
prohibition of genocide, slavery and torture.65
the object and purpose of the Maputo Protocol is to
create a legally binding scheme of specific rights and
obligations for the promotion and protection of the
rights of women, and to establish or designate an
institutional framework for supervising the realisation
by State Parties of those rights and obligations.
◆ It invokes the provisions of its domestic law to justify its
failure to perform its treaty obligation.68
46. Core articles of the Protocol: A consequent arising
priority is the need for State Parties to be aware of the
core articles of the Maputo Protocol, whose violation
would undermine its object and purpose. Comparatively,
one study notes that in relation to CEDAW, Articles
2 (obligations to eliminate discrimination against
women), 9 (equal rights regarding nationality), 15
(equality before the law), and 16 (equality in marriage
and family matters), form the core articles of the
Convention.70 Additionally, the Committee of Experts
has expressed the view that entering a reservation
limiting the definition of a child under Article 2 of
the ACRWC is invalid because it undermines the
operation of other rights in the Charter and it goes
against the foundation on which the whole instrument
is established.71 It has also been noted that lodging
reservations that undermine the effective operation
of a treaty’s supervisory mechanism undermines the
purpose and object of the treaty since it denies rightsholders the option of seeking effective remedies.72
45. Hence, a State Party must not lodge a reservation that is
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Maputo
Protocol. As shown in the next chapters, the African
Commission and the African Court, among other
mechanisms, are mandated to determine the object
and purpose of the Protocol, and it is essential that
those mechanisms fulfil that mandate. Nonetheless, a
recent study on the Maputo Protocol suggests that by
its preamble, the object and purpose of the Protocol is
to eliminate all forms of discrimination and harmful
practices against all women, including gender-based
violence, and to promote women’s role in development
and peace-making.69 Thus, it may be surmised that
47. Cultural relativism is not a justification for lodging a
reservation: A State Party must not employ reservations
as a tool for asserting notions of cultural relativism. It
must recognise that excluding or modifying specific
provisions of the Protocol on any exceptional basis
gravely undermines the rights of women and limits the
enjoyment of human rights which apply universally. It
has been noted that reservations “dilute” the principle
of universality of human rights, thereby chipping away
at the purpose of the treaty-making system, which
seeks to create universal human rights norms and
standards.73 Hence, while a State Party technically has
the prerogative to lodge reservations to the Maputo
◆ It is entered against a core provision of a treaty – a
provision that establishes the object and purpose of the
instrument.66
◆ It is framed in general and vague statements that do
not provide a sufficiently clear indication of how they
affect a State’s obligations and may effectively nullify
them. Phraseology, for example, may state that a treaty
or a specific article is to be interpreted in conformity
with national legislation.67
65 CCPR General Comment No. 24, para 8, n21.
66 Ibid.
67 Ilias Bantekas and Lutz Oette, International Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2013) 57.
68 Ibid, p58.
69 Annika Rudman, “Preamble”, in Annika Rudman, Celestine Musembi and TrésorMakunya (eds) The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa: a commentary (Pretoria University Law Press, 2023).
70 Susanne Zwingel, Translating International Women’s Rights: The CEDAW Convention in Context (Springer Nature 2016) chapter 7.
71 “2040 Agenda: Fostering an Africa Fit for Children – Assessment of the First Phase of Implementation (2016-2020)” (African Committee of Experts
on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 2021).
72 Humphrey Sipalla, “(In)validity of Egypt’s Reservations to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child” (2019) Kabarak Journal of Law
and Ethics Vol. 4.
In this regard, it should be noted that Ethiopia makes a reservation on Article 27 of the Maputo Protocol which gives the African Court jurisdiction to
determine cases under the Protocol. - “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8. This reservation is curious since Ethiopia is not a party to the Protocol for the Establishment of
an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
73 Y Tyagi, “The Conflict of Law and Policy on Reservation to Human Rights Treaties,” (2000) British Yearbook of International Law, Volume 71, Issue
XVIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Protocol, it should not use exclusivist or exceptionalist
means to raise any concerns it may have on certain
provisions of the Protocol. Mali, for example, employed
a more amenable approach when it ratified the Protocol
without any reservations, rather opting to engage on
any concerns it had on a continuing basis while its
women enjoyed their rights under the Protocol.74
48. African ethical and moral values: The contention
that the Maputo Protocol has provisions that are
inconsistent with African ethical and moral values
is based on a misunderstanding. In fact, the Protocol
seeks to reconcile culture and broader aspirations of
gender equality by affirming positive cultural values
while eradicating harmful cultural practices.75 Its
Preamble recognises “the crucial role of women in the
preservation of African values based on the principles
of equality, peace, freedom, dignity, justice, solidarity
and democracy”.76 The African values envisaged in
the Protocol resonate with universal values in their
prohibition of discrimination as established in Article
2 of the Protocol. As has been noted,77 this is the context
within which the Protocol prohibits harmful practices,
which it defines as “all behaviour, attitudes and/or
practices which negatively affect the fundamental
rights of women and girls, such as their right to life,
health, dignity, education and physical integrity”.78
49. Apparent contravention of Islamic law: A State
Party with a majority or significant minority Muslim
population should engage critically with the contention
that certain provisions of the Maputo Protocol
contravene Islamic law. At least eight State Parties with
majority or significant minority Muslim populations
have not made reservations to the Maputo Protocol –
Djibouti, The Gambia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria,
Senegal and Tunisia.79 Studies highlight instances
where States with significant Muslim populations
have enacted legislation guaranteeing equal rights for
women.80
50. The
most-favourable-provision
principle:
A
reservation based on the contention that domestic
legislation offers better protection than a legal standard
established in the Maputo Protocol is superfluous in
light of Article 31 of the Protocol which provides that:
“None of the provisions of the present Protocol shall
affect more favourable provisions for the realisation
of the rights of women contained in the national
legislation of States Parties or in any other regional,
continental or international conventions, treaties or
agreements applicable in these States Parties.”81
51. Reservations made on an interim basis: Where a State
Party makes reservations on an interim basis to give it
time to enact enabling legislation, it is imperative that
the State Party proceeds with dispatch to take requisite
measures to address the intervening circumstances
so that it may then withdraw the reservation
expeditiously.82
52. Political will: Finally, it should be stressed that the
withdrawal of reservations to the Maputo Protocol
is far more than a legal exercise. By withdrawing
reservations, a State reaffirms its political willingness
and commitment to fully ensure the rights and dignity
of its women.
1, 205.
74 Brenda K Kombo, “Silences that Speak Volumes: The Significance of the African Court Decision in APDF and IHRDA v Mali for Women’s Human
Rights on the Continent” (2019) 3 African Human Rights Yearbook 389-413.
75 Jing Geng, “The Maputo Protocol and the Reconciliation of Gender and Culture in Africa”, in Susan Harris Rimmer and Kate Ogg (eds) Research
Handbook on Feminist Engagement with International Law (Edward Elgar 2019).
76 Preamble of the Maputo Protocol, n7.
77 A Johnson, “Article 17: Right to a Positive Cultural Context”, in Annika Rudman, Celestine Musembi and Triza Makunya (eds) The Protocol to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa: A Commentary, 365, n69.
78 Article 1 of the Maputo Protocol, n7.
79 “List of Countries which have Signed, Ratified/Acceded to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n8.
80 See, for example, “CEDAW and Muslim Family Laws: In Search of Common Ground” (Musawah, 2011).
81 Maputo Protocol, n7. For example, see “Revisiting South Africa’s Reservations to the Maputo Protocol: Leveraging Article 31 of the Protocol for Removal of South Africa’s Reservations” (Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre in partnership with The University of Pretoria’s Centre for Human Rights, 1
March 2021).
82 This is evidenced in relation to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Mauritius which explained to the African Commission
that it had enacted regulations on accessibility for persons with disabilities and hence was in a position to lift its reservations to accessibility in the
Convention. “11th Periodic Report of the Republic of Mauritius on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, September
2019 — March 2024” (Republic of Mauritius, April 2024).
XIX
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 4: The African
Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights
Context
53. The functions of the African Commission include
promoting and protecting human and peoples’ rights,
and interpreting the ACHPR.83
54. The African Commission promotes human and
peoples’ rights by undertaking research and organising
seminars on matters of human and peoples’ rights, and
making recommendations to governments and other
actors. It also formulates and lays down principles and
rules aimed at solving legal problems relating to human
and peoples’ rights and fundamental freedoms upon
which African governments may base their legislation.
55. The African Commission ensures the protection
of human and peoples’ rights by determining
communications, undertaking protection or factfinding missions, and by responding to emergent
situations of human rights violations through
provisional measures, urgent appeals, resolutions, and
public statements.
56. The African Commission interprets the ACHPR at the
request of a State Party, an institution of the AU or an
African organisation recognised by the AU.
57. As already indicated in Chapter 2, the African
Commission supervises the implementation of the
Maputo Protocol.
58. The African Commission has, occasionally but not
regularly and consistently, urged State Parties to the
instruments it supervises to consider withdrawing
reservations to those instruments. It has, for example,
called on Egypt to withdraw its reservations to Articles
8 and 18(3) of the ACHPR, particularly those on the
equality of women, which Egypt’s reservation considers
should be applied subject to the guidance of Islamic
Law.84 Specifically on the Maputo Protocol, in 2024,
without proffering any elaborations, the Commission
called on Uganda to withdraw its reservation on Article
14 of the Maputo Protocol.85 In 2022, the Commission
called on Kenya to consider withdrawing its reservation
on Article 10(3) of the Protocol, “in light of all the efforts
aiming to promote social development in the country”.86
It also called on Kenya to withdraw its reservation on
Article 14(2)(c) “since Article 26(4) of the Constitution
permits abortion for the same reasons as the abovementioned Article”.87 In 2016, the Commission called
on South Africa to withdraw all its reservations to
the Maputo Protocol “in line with the spirit of the
Protocol”.88 The Commission has, however, not used its
concluding observations with more regularity to call
on State Parties with reservations to the Protocol to
withdraw them. For example, in 2022, it did not call on
Namibia to withdraw its reservation to the Protocol.89
59. The African Commission has elaborated normative
standards which provide limited guidance on the use
of reservations.
60. Guideline 64 of the Guidelines on Combating Sexual
Violence and its Consequences in Africa (Niamey
Guidelines), issued by the African Commission, notes:
A number of African States have not yet ratified
regional and international instruments to
combat sexual violence and its consequences,
including the Maputo Protocol, CEDAW and its
Optional Protocol. These States are encouraged
to immediately ratify all of these instruments
without reservation.90
61. The African Commission has also stressed that
customary, traditional and religious practices must not
undermine the application of substantive equality to
women. States must establish a unified and harmonised
83 Article 45 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, n2.
84 “Concluding Observations and Recommendations - Egypt: 7th and 8th Periodic Reports, 2001-2004” May 11, 2005.
85 “Concluding Observations on the Combined 6th - 8th Periodic Report of the Republic of Uganda under the African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights and Initial Report under the Maputo Protocol (2013-2022)” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2024) paras 65 and 78.
86 “Concluding Observations on the Republic of Kenya 12th-13th Periodic Report on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights and Initial Report on the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol)” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights 2022) para 88.
87 Ibid, para 92.
88 “Concluding Observations and Recommendations on the Combined Second Periodic Report under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights and the Initial Report under the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa of the Republic of South Africa” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2016) para 45.
89 “Concluding Observations on the Republic of Namibia 7th Periodic Report on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights and 2nd Report on the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa ( Maputo Protocol)” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2022).
90 Guidelines on Combating Sexual Violence and its Consequences in Africa (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2017).
XX
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
legal standard consistent with the Maputo Protocol on
marital property regimes.91
62. Finally, as stated in chapter two, the African Commission
has affirmed that it has the jurisdiction to determine
the validity of reservations made to the human rights
instruments it supervises.92 This is the context within
which the African Commission has adopted Resolution
632 for the preparation of this Advocacy Framework to
raise awareness on the withdrawal of reservations.
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
63. Reviewing the effectiveness of past approaches and
adapting them accordingly: The African Commission
should review the effectiveness of the approaches
it has used in the past seeking the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol and other human
rights instruments. It should adapt those approaches,
using a combination of strategies, to establish concrete
standards and provide directions and guidance on the
withdrawal of reservations. Different strategies will
suit different States and different contexts.
64. Concerted calls for withdrawing reservations: The
African Commission should call on State Parties to
withdraw their reservations on a more regular and
consistent basis. It should ask them to regularly review
the circumstances and contexts that informed the
reservations. As well, the Commission should establish
standard operating procedures for monitoring and
reviewing the extent to which State Parties respond to
these calls.
65. Periodic reports and promotion missions: The African
Commission should engage State Parties to withdraw
reservations using its periodic reporting procedure
provided under Article 62 of the ACHPR and Article
26 of the Maputo Protocol. It should similarly engage
with State and non-state actors when it undertakes
promotion missions. The Commission should be
innovative in its engagements with State Parties, and
its recommendations should not simply fall back
on template phraseology without taking account of
country-specific contexts. Whenever it calls on a State
Party to withdraw its reservations to a human rights
instrument, it should set out its reasons for the request.
66. Resolutions: The African Commission should use
country resolutions to call on State Parties with
particularly severe reservations to withdraw them. It
should use thematic resolutions to call on State Parties
to withdraw reservations to particularly contested
provisions of the Maputo Protocol, including Articles
6 (marriage), 7 (divorce, separation and annulment), 10
(military expenditure), and 14 (sexual and reproductive
rights).
67. Core articles: The African Commission should make
an express statement on the provisions that it deems
to be core articles of the Maputo Protocol on which a
State may not lodge reservations. Other human rights
mechanisms, including the CEDAW Committee, have
issued such statements.
68. Affirmation: The African Commission should issue
statements or reports to affirm States that withdraw
reservations to the Protocol. Affirmation serves the
purpose of raising awareness on the withdrawn
reservations while also providing positive examples for
other States. The Commission should also, on a regular
basis, name States that continue to have reservations
on the Protocol.
69. General comments: The Commission should consider
preparing guidance instruments addressing the
meaning and implications of reservations, explaining
the validity or invalidity of reservations under the
Maputo Protocol and more generally under the other
instruments it supervises, and providing directions
on the withdrawal of reservations. This authoritative
guidance should be in the form of a general comment,
and it may be prepared by the Commission singly or
jointly with the Committee of Experts. Precedents
for the preparation of joint general comments exist,
including when the two mechanisms prepared the
Joint General Comment on FGM.93 In the above regard,
the African Commission should make an express
statement on the provisions in the Maputo Protocol
that it considers so core to the Protocol that lodging
reservations to them amounts to negating the object
and purpose of the instrument.
70. Determination of communications: Whenever the
African Commission is determining admissibility
or merit communications, it should consider taking
91 General Comment No. 6 on Article 7(d) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2020) paras 48-49.
92 Communication 355/07: Hossam Ezzat and Rania Enayet (represented by Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS) v The Arab Republic of Egypt, n29.
93 Joint General Comment on Female Genital Mutilation (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and African Committee of Experts on
the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 2023).
XXI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
a view on the impacts that reservations relevant to
the communications may have on the litigants. The
determinations should include evaluations on the
validity of such reservations. Implicit in this approach
is the need for all Member States of the AU to become
party to the Maputo Protocol.
71. Direct access to the African Court: Whenever
appropriate, the African Commission should consider
using its mandated direct access to the African Court,
established under the Protocol to the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment
of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(African Court Protocol), to seek an advisory opinion
on particular reservations. The African Court Protocol
provides that the African Commission may request
the African Court to “provide an opinion on any legal
matter relating to the Charter or any other relevant
human rights instruments …”.94
72. Information synthesis and sharing: At an
administrative level, the African Commission should
urge and support relevant organs of the AU to ensure
they provide full and current information on the
continent’s status of reservations of human rights
instruments. The Commission should include such
relevant information on its website, for example,
by linking its pages with relevant pages of other AU
organs. It should also include current information on
reservations in country-specific reports, including
concluding observations and recommendations
reports, promotion mission reports, and fact-finding
reports.
73. High-level convening on the withdrawal of
reservations: Finally, to anchor all the foregoing
elements of the Advocacy Framework, the African
Commission should consider hosting a high-level
convening on the withdrawal of reservations to African
human rights instruments. The convening would
provide the Commission’s stakeholders, including
Member States of the AU and non-state actors, with
the opportunity to address how to realise the full
withdrawal of reservations. Such a convening could be
held as part of an ordinary session of the Commission
or in a specially convened conference.
94 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Organisation of African Unity, 1998) art5.
XXII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 5: The Special
Rapporteur on the Rights of
Women in Africa
Context
74. As stated in chapter one of the Advocacy Framework, the
mandate of the Special Rapporteur is to assist African
governments to develop and implement policies on the
promotion and protection of the rights of women, in line
with the domestication of the Maputo Protocol.95
75. The Special Rapporteur has, for over 25 years, played
critical advocacy and campaign roles to promote and
protect the rights of women. For example, the Special
Rapporteur has spearheaded the development and
adoption by the African Commission of a number of
general comments elaborating various provisions of the
Maputo Protocol.96
76. In 2024, the African Commission mandated the
Special Rapporteur to prepare a Model Law on the
Implementation and Domestication of the Maputo
Protocol, to “serve as a blueprint to assist Member
States (sic – actually state parties to the Protocol) in
harmonising their legislation with the provisions of the
Maputo Protocol.”97
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
77. Campaigns and advocacy missions: The Special
Rapporteur should undertake campaigns and advocacy
missions calling on State Parties to withdraw their
reservations to the Maputo Protocol. The Special
Rapporteur should support stakeholders in specific
countries to make the case for the withdrawal of
reservations. The Special Rapporteur should craft
a specific campaign focusing on State Parties with
reservations. The Special Rapporteur should also use
advocacy visits, organised in partnership with domestic
stakeholders, to meet and engage various relevant State
and non-state actors.
78. Working with organs of State Parties: The Special
Rapporteur should encourage and support government
organs and departments in State Parties with reservations
to the Maputo Protocol to establish policy and legislative
measures for the withdrawal of the reservations. The
Special Rapporteur should propose a specific resolution
or series of resolutions for adoption by the African
Commission calling on the State Parties to withdraw the
reservations.
79. Research studies: The Special Rapporteur should, in
collaboration with NHRIs and CSOs, undertake thematic
or country-specific studies on the impact of reservations
in State Parties with reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
80. Partnerships: The Special Rapporteur should partner/
collaborate with equivalent mechanisms within the
continent’s human rights infrastructure, such as the
Committee of Experts, and UN Special Procedures, to
issue joint communiques, undertake joint missions,
and otherwise support the African Commission’s work
focusing on the withdrawal of reservations to the Maputo
Protocol and other relevant human rights instruments.
The Special Rapporteur has played equivalent
collaborative and partnership roles, such as when the
Committee of Experts and the African Commission
prepared and launched their Joint General Comment on
FGM in 2023.98
81. Letters of urgent appeal: Whenever the Special
Rapporteur sends a letter of urgent appeal to the
government that is a State Party to the Maputo Protocol,
the Rapporteur should highlight whether the apparent
violation at issue is being exacerbated by a reservation
that the subject State may have on the Protocol and, if
so, the Rapporteur should use the letter as a means for
engaging the State to withdraw the reservation.
82. Model Law: The Model Law on the Implementation
and Domestication of the Maputo Protocol, being
prepared by the Special Rapporteur in collaboration
with PAP, should include guidance on the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
95 ACHPR/res.38 (XXV) 99 “Appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa”, n3.
96 See:
◆ “General Comment No. 1 on Article 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2012).
◆ “General Comment No. 2 on Article 14(1) (a), (b), (c) and (f) and Article 14(2) (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2014).
◆ “Joint General Comment of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and the African Committee of Experts on the
Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) on ending Child Marriage”,” (2017).
◆ “General Comment No. 6 on the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa: The Right to
Property During Separation, Divorce or Annulment of Marriage (Article 7(d))” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2020).
97 ACHPR/RES.592 (LXXX) “Resolution for the Development of a Model Law on the Implementation and Domestication of the Maputo Protocol” n1.
98 “Intersession Activity Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa”, presented at the 79th Ordinary Session of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 14th May – 3rd June 2024, para 10.
XXIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 6: The African
Committee of Experts on
the Rights and Welfare of the
Child
Context
83. Under the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child (ACRWC), the functions of the Committee
of Experts include promoting and protecting the rights
of children.99 These functions cover children, defined
in the ACRWC as every human being below the age
of 18.100 The Committee’s scope of work includes
gender-specific interventions on matters such as child
marriage.101
84. Five State Parties to the ACRWC have, over time, lodged
reservations to various provisions of the Charter –
Botswana, Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan,102 and SADR.103
The reservations entered by these State Parties limited
the exercise of rights by girls. For example, Egypt’s
reservation on Article 24 of the ACRWC restricted the
adoption of children, while its reservation on Article
30(a) restricted the rights of children of imprisoned
mothers.104 Sudan’s reservation on Article 11(6) of the
ACRWC was on the education of children who became
pregnant before completing their education, while its
reservation on Article 21(2) was on the abolition of
child marriage and the betrothal of girls and boys.105
85. On a positive note, in 2015, it was reported that Egypt
had withdrawn its reservations to some provisions in
the ACRWC, including Article 24.106 Again, on a positive
note, it was reported in 2020 that the Transitional
Government of Sudan had withdrawn three reservations
to the ACRWC, including reservations covering
child marriage and the continuation of education by
pregnant girls.107 However, these apparent withdrawals
of reservations to the ACRWC by Egypt and Sudan have
not been published formally by the AUC. This is unlike
the reservation lodged by Botswana to the ACRWC. In
2022, the AUC communicated formally to states that
Botswana had withdrawn its reservation challenging
the definition of a child in Article 2 of the ACRWC.108
Hence, according to the website of the Committee
of Experts, despite reports to the contrary, Egypt,
Mauritania, SADR and Sudan retain reservations to the
ACRWC.109
86. The Committee of Experts has used the communications
procedure under Article 44 of the ACRWC to determine
cases involving the violation of girls’ rights. For
example, in Legal and Human Rights Centre and the Centre
for Reproductive Rights (on Behalf of Tanzanian Girls)
Against the United Republic of Tanzania, the Committee
of Experts found that Tanzania’s practice of expelling
pregnant students from school violated adolescent
girls’ human rights. The Committee of Experts found
that Tanzania had violated its obligations under the
ACRWC in relation to non-discrimination; best interests
of the child; protection of privacy, education, health
and health services; protection against child abuse
and torture; and protection against harmful social and
cultural practices.110
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
87. Communications: The Committee of Experts should
consider addressing reservations made under the
ACRWC when determining communications filed
before it.
88. Other strategies: The Committee of Experts should
use its periodic reporting procedure, its promotion
missions, and its country and thematic resolutions
to guide State Parties to withdraw reservations to the
ACRWC that undermine the rights of girls.
89. Joint general comment: The Committee of Experts
should consider preparing a joint general comment
with the African Commission on the withdrawal of
99 Article 42 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (Organisation of African Unity, 1990).
100 Ibid, art1.
101 Ibid, art21.
102 See list of reservations to the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (accessible here.)
103 Ratifications Table ACERWC (accessible here.)
104 Ibid.
105 See list of reservations (accessible here.) Also see “Report of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child to the Executive Council” (February 2022).
106 “Egypt Cancels Reservations on African Child Rights Charter” (Al-Masry Al-Youm, 27 November 2015).
107 “Joint Press Release Day of the African Child 2021” (UNICEF Sudan, 16 June 2021).
108 “Republic of Botswana Has Withdrawn its Reservation on Article 2 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child” (ACERWC, 25
November 2022).
109 Ratifications Table ACERWC n103.
110 Legal and Human Rights Centre and Centre for Reproductive Rights (on behalf of Tanzanian girls) v United Republic of Tanzania (Communication No.
0012/Com/001/2019; Decision No. 002/2022) [2022] ACERWC 2 (1 April 2022).
XXIV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
reservations that undermine the rights of women and
girls, including reservations to the ACRWC and the
Maputo Protocol.
90. Collaborations: Relevant Special Rapporteurs of the
Committee of Experts, such as the Special Rapporteur
on Child Marriage and Other Harmful Practices, should
collaborate with the Special Rapporteur and other
relevant mandate-holders of the African Commission
to undertake joint promotion missions and other
promotional/advocacy activities for the withdrawal of
reservations to the ACRWC and the Maputo Protocol.
XXV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 7: The African Court
on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Context
91. The mandate of the African Court under the African
Court Protocol is to complement the protective
mandate of the African Commission by determining
cases and disputes, including on the application and
interpretation of the ACHPR.111 Additionally, the African
Court is mandated by the Maputo Protocol to interpret
that Protocol’s application or implementation.112
92. Relevant too under the African Court Protocol is its
provision that a State Party may make a declaration
accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases
directly from individuals and NGOs with observer status
before the African Commission.113 The following eight
states have issued the declaration allowing individuals
direct access to the Court: Burkina Faso, The Gambia,
Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Niger and
Tunisia.114 Four State Parties, which had previously
made the declaration allowing individuals direct
access to the Court – Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Rwanda and
Tanzania, withdrew the declaration.115 Hence, none of
the nine State Parties with reservations to the Maputo
Protocol allows individuals or NGOs direct access to the
Court.
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
95. Determinations: The African Court should consider
making determinations on the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol, if and when
cases arise. It should consider admitting requests for
advisory opinions from entities with standing before it,
including the African Commission, State Parties to the
African Court Protocol, and entities/individuals with
Article 34(6) standing, on the validity of reservations
under the Maputo Protocol. Consideration of such
advisory opinions would benefit State Parties with
reservations and AU Member States that have not
become party to the Maputo Protocol.
96. Popularising its functions: Subject to its mandate, the
African Court should use its country promotion visits to
explain to potential parties about how they may use the
Court to address women’s rights violations and abuses,
including by challenging reservations to the Protocol.
97. Gatherings of judicial and quasi-judicial institutions:
The African Court should also use gatherings of judicial
and quasi-judicial institutions to address the question
of reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
93. Where individuals do not have direct access to
the African Court, they may request the African
Commission to use its complementarity mandate to
lodge a case on their behalf before the Court, in relation
to a State Party to the African Court Protocol.116
94. The African Court has made important determinations
affirming the rights of women. The Court, for example,
found that Mali had violated Article 6(b) of the Maputo
Protocol, among other instruments, since its Family
Code did not comply with 18 years as the minimum
age of marriage, and since the Code’s provisions left
women and girls in danger of being married without
their consent, in violation, among others, of Article
6(a) of the Maputo Protocol.117
111 African Court Protocol, arts2 and 3, n94.
112 Maputo Protocol, art 27, n7.
113 African Court Protocol, art34(6), n94.
114 “African Court Coalition Discussions: States Withdrawals from Article 34(6) of the African Court Protocol” (Coalition for an Effective African Court
on Human and Peoples’ Rights, May 2020.
115 Ibid.
116 African Court Protocol, art5, n94.
117 APDF and Another v Mali (Application No. 046/2016) [2018] AfCHPR 9 (11 May 2018).
XXVI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 8: Key DecisionMaking Organs of the African
Union
Context
98. The key decision-making organs of the AU under the
Constitutive Act of the AU include the Union’s Assembly,
its Executive Council, and the PRC.118 The AUC is the
secretariat of the AU, and hence is responsible for
implementing the decisions of those organs.119
99. The Constitutive Act enjoins the Union’s organs to
function in accordance, among others, with the principle
of gender equality.120 The AU has operationalised this
principle through policies and plans which also support
the full realisation of the Maputo Protocol.
100. Aspiration 6 of the Union’s long-term development
blueprint, Agenda 2063, anticipates “An Africa where
development is people-driven, relying upon the
potential offered by people, especially its women and
youth and caring for children”.121
101. The AU, in the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality
in Africa (Solemn Declaration), committed Member
States to undertake public campaigns against genderbased violence and the trafficking of women and
girls;122 and to promote legislation guaranteeing
women’s land, property and inheritance rights.123
States also undertook to become party to the Maputo
Protocol, and to domesticate and implement it.124 These
commitments are consistent with the imperative of
withdrawing all reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
The Solemn Declaration commits Member States of
the AU to submit annual progress reports on gender
mainstreaming.125 Member States of the Union
are required to submit progress reports on their
implementation of the Solemn Declaration, which are
then synthesised and submitted to the AU Assembly.
102. The goal of the Strategy for Gender Equality and Women’s
Empowerment (2018-2028), which operationalises
Aspiration 6 of Agenda 2063, is full gender equality in
all spheres of life.126 This goal cannot be realised fully
when State Parties retain reservations to key provisions
of the Maputo Protocol. The intended outcomes of
pillar two of the Strategy, which is on dignity, security
and resilience, include improving the sexual and
reproductive health and reproductive rights of women,
and criminalising all forms of violence against women
and girls. The outcomes of pillar three of the Strategy
include national laws and judicial systems that protect
and fulfil women’s ownership and inheritance rights,
education, wage equality, civil liberties and physical
integrity as provided for by the Maputo Protocol.127
103. The Maputo Plan of Action 2016-2030 for the
Operationalisation of the Continental Policy Framework
for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights aims to
realise universal access to comprehensive sexual and
reproductive health services. The Plan’s ten action
areas are particularly significant in the discourse for
withdrawing reservations to the Maputo Protocol. These
include the action areas on political commitment,
leadership and governance; health legislation; gender
equality, empowerment of girls and women and respect
for human rights; investing in sexual and reproductive
health needs of adolescents, youth and other vulnerable
populations; partnerships and collaborations; and
monitoring, reporting and accountability. The Plan
commits to provide sexual and reproductive health
services along the continuum of care to all who need
them, including couples, women of reproductive age,
women beyond reproductive age, newborns, children,
adolescents and youth and men in hard-to-reach areas,
mobile and cross-border populations, and displaced
persons.128 This commitment will be realised fully only
if State Parties with reservations to Article 14 of the
Maputo Protocol withdraw them.
104. The AU’s Declaration and Call to Action on Positive
Masculinity to End Violence Against Women and Girls
in Africa commits to support the Chairperson of the
118 Constitutive Act of the African Union, art5, n40. Other organs of the Union listed in Article 5 of the Constitutive Act are: the Pan-African Parliament; the Court of Justice; the Specialized Technical Committees; the Economic, Social and Cultural Council; and the Financial Institutions.
119 Statutes of the Commission of the African Union (African Union, 2019).
120 Constitutive Act of the African Union, art4(l), n40.
121 “Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want” African Union (accessible here.)
122 Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (African Union, 2004), para 4.
123 Ibid, para 7.
124 Ibid, para 9.
125 Ibid, para 12.
126 AU Strategy for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment 2018-2028 (African Union, 2019).
127 Ibid.
128 Maputo Plan of Action 2016-2030 for the Operationalisation of the Continental Policy Framework for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
(African Union, 2016).
XXVII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
AUC to implement the Maputo Protocol Scorecard and
Index as a tool to accelerate the realisation of the rights
of women and girls.129
105. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), a
voluntary self-monitoring mechanism under which
Member States of the AU monitor their peers to
ensure policies and practices conform to agreed
governance values, codes and standards, uses research
and advocacy outputs towards ensuring the rights of
women.130 APRM monitors gender using indicators on
gender-based violence, HIV/AIDS, harmful practices,
and sexual and reproductive health.131
106. A further relevant legal avenue is the African Charter
on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG),
whose objectives include promoting gender balance
and equality in the governance and development
processes.132 ACDEG obligates State Parties to eliminate
all forms of discrimination, including those based on
gender, and to adopt legislative and administrative
measures to guarantee the rights of women.133 ACDEG
obligates State Parties to submit to the AUC biennial
reports on measures taken to give effect to the principles
and commitments of the Charter. The AUC submits a
synthesis of these reports to the Executive Council.134
Seven of the nine State Parties with reservations to
the Maputo Protocol are also State Parties to ACDEG
– Algeria, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Namibia,
SADR and South Africa.135 However, none of them has
submitted their reports for consideration.136
107. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the
African Union (ECOSOCC) is an advisory organ of
the Union composed of CSOs from Member States.
Its functions include forging partnerships between
governments and all segments of civil society, including
women, and promoting the participation of African
civil society in the implementation of the policies and
programmes of the Union.137 ECOSOCC contributes to
the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, good
governance, democratic principles, gender equality
and child rights.138
108. Another important advisory agency of the AU is
the African Union Commission of International
Law (AUCIL), whose mandate includes proposing
draft framework agreements, model regulations,
formulations and analyses of emerging trends in State
practice to facilitate the codification and progressive
development of international law.139
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
109. The Solemn Declaration as a platform for the
withdrawal of reservations: The AU should provide
directions on, facilitate and encourage State Parties
to withdraw reservations to the Maputo Protocol. In
particular, the Women, Gender and Youth Directorate
of the AUC should use the reporting procedure under
the Solemn Declaration as a basis for encouraging such
States to withdraw the reservations, and encouraging
Member States of the AU that are not party to the
Maputo Protocol to become party to it. As well, the
Specialised Technical Committee on Gender, Equality
and Women’s Empowerment, which is constituted
by ministries of gender of AU member states, should
include a standing agenda item on the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
110. Information synthesis and dissemination by Office
of Legal Counsel: The AUC should, through its Office
of Legal Counsel, revamp a dynamic depository of
all ratifications and reservations to African human
rights instruments. The depository should include
full information on all the reservations to the Maputo
Protocol which any State Party has ever made, and
information on when and which reservations have
been withdrawn. More generally, whenever a Member
State of the AU lodges an instrument of ratification or
accession with the AUC, the AUC should communicate
that fact in a timeous manner to all the Member States
of the AU, to provide them ample opportunity to
129 Declaration and Call to Action on Positive Masculinity to End Violence Against Women and Girls in Africa (African Union, 2021).
130 See, for example, “Gender Equality and The Africa Peer Review Mechanism” (Economic Commission for Africa, 2016).
131 “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the African Union Framework”, in “State of African Women Report” (International Planned Parenthood Federation Africa Region, 2018).
132 African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (African Union, 2007).
133 Ibid, art8.
134 Ibid, art49.
135 See list (accessible here.)
136 For a review of the prospects and challenges of ACDEG’s implementation, see Andrew Songa and Makda M Tessema, “Strengthening Democratic
Governance in Africa Through State Reporting Under the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance: Assessing the Prospects, Challenges and Pathways to Improved Compliance” (2024) 8 African Human Rights Yearbook.
137 Statutes of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (African Union, 2004) art2.
138 Ibid, art7.
139 About AUCIL (accessible here.)
XXVIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
lodge objections if they so desire. The AUC too should
publicise such reservations expeditiously, to provide
stakeholders with ample participation opportunities.
111. The PRC: The PRC should specifically mandate its
Sub-committee on Human Rights and Governance to
support the withdrawal of reservations to the Maputo
Protocol. The PRC should also partner with the African
Commission to build the capacities of its members on
human rights instruments, including on the meaning
and implications of reservations.
112. Gender indicators: The APRM should ensure that the
gender indicators it uses in its reports capture the
impacts of reservations to the Maputo Protocol and
other human rights instruments.
113. ACDEG: The AU should, under the ACDEG framework,
call on State Parties with reservations to the Maputo
Protocol to withdraw them.
114. ECOSOCC: ECOSOCC should explore opportunities for
engaging Member States of the AU on the withdrawal of
reservations to human rights instruments, in line with
its mandate.
XXIX
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 9: The Pan-African
Parliament
Context
115. The Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African
Economic Community Relating to the Pan- African
Parliament mandates PAP, among others, to promote the
principles of human rights and democracy in Africa.140
The Protocol enjoins PAP to make recommendations
on matters pertaining to the respect of human rights,
and to work towards the harmonisation or coordination
of the laws of Member States of the African Economic
Community.141
116. In fulfilment of the above mandate, PAP is in the process
of preparing the Model Law on Gender Equality and
Equity, with the involvement of other AU organs and
agencies, including ECOSOCC and RECs.142 As already
stated, PAP is also collaborating with the Special
Rapporteur to develop a Model Law on Implementing
and Domesticating the Maputo Protocol.
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
117. Model law: PAP should develop a model law on the
ratification of human rights treaties, including the
withdrawal of reservations to such instruments. The
Model Law on the Implementation and Domestication
of the Maputo Protocol, being prepared by the Special
Rapporteur in collaboration with PAP, should include
guidance on the withdrawal of reservations to the
Maputo Protocol.
118. Additional interventions: PAP should use its
resolutions to call on State Parties to withdraw their
reservations to the Maputo Protocol. PAP’s Committee
on Gender, Family, Youth and People with Disabilities
should also be seized with this matter.
140 Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to the Pan-African Parliament (Organisation of African Unity, 2001)
art1. This Protocol will be replaced by the Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the African Union Relating to the Pan-African Parliament, adopted by the
AU in 2014, when a simple majority of Member States of the AU deposit their instruments of ratification with the AUC.
141 Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to the Pan- African Parliament, art11, ibid.
142 For example, see “Pan-African Parliament Moves One Step Closer to a Landmark Model Law on Gender Equality and Equity in Africa” (Pan-African
Parliament, 25 April 2024).
XXX
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 10: Regional
Economic Communities
Context
119. The AU recognises the following eight RECs: the
Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), Community of SahelSaharan States (CEN- SAD), Common Market for
Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African
Community (EAC), Economic Community of Central
African States (ECCAS), Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS), Intergovernmental Authority
on Development (IGAD), and Southern African
Development Community (SADC).
120. Some RECs have established significant policy and
regulatory gender frameworks.
121. The SADC Protocol on Gender and Development
provides for many of the matters also legislated in the
Maputo Protocol. These include affirmative action,
marriage and family rights, the rights of widows and
widowers, the girl and boy-child, gender equality,
access to property and resources, and health.143 The
SADC Protocol forms an important basis for assessing
the extent to which women exercise many of the rights
on which some State Parties to the Maputo Protocol
have made reservations.144
122. The SADC Model Law on Eradicating Child Marriage
and Protecting Children Already in Marriage,145 and
the SADC Model Law on Gender-Based Violence,146
urge Member States of SADC to ratify and domesticate
international human rights instruments without
undue delay, and to withdraw reservations to such
instruments.
determinations on the rights of women. In 2019, in
Dorothy Njemanze and 3 Others v Nigeria, the ECOWAS
Court determined that Nigeria had violated the rights
of women who it had treated violently, assuming
they were sex workers.148 In 2020, in Women Against
Violence and Exploitation in Society (WAVES) v Sierra
Leone, the ECOWAS Court determined that stopping
pregnant girls from attending mainstream schools
was discriminatory and in violation of human rights
instruments, including the Maputo Protocol. The Court
found that there was no reasonable basis for singling
out the pregnant girls for differential treatment. Sierra
Leone had failed to put in place measures to reduce
teenage pregnancy, and it had discriminated against
pregnant girls by establishing parallel suboptimal
schools where the girls would learn only four subjects
for three days a week.149
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
124. Withdrawal of reservations: RECs should encourage
and support their Member States to withdraw
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
125. Judicial mechanisms: The judicial mechanisms of
RECs should consider providing interpretation on the
validity or invalidity of country-specific reservations.
126. Resolutions and model laws: The parliaments of
RECs should adopt resolutions on the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
127. CSO networks: Civil society networks in RECs, such as
the ECOWAS CSOs Network and the East African CSO
Forum, should play proactive roles in advocating for
the withdrawal of reservations.
123. Some RECs have established judicial organs that
enforce the ACHPR and, by extension, the Maputo
Protocol. The Economic Community of West African
States Community Court of Justice (ECOWAS Court)
has an express human rights mandate.147 The ECOWAS
Court has used the Maputo Protocol to make significant
143 Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Gender and Development (Southern Africa Development Community, 2004).
144 For example, see the 15th edition of the SADC Gender Protocol Barometer, launched in 2024.
145 Southern Africa Development Community Model Law on Eradicating Child Marriage and Protecting Children Already in Marriage (Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum, 2016).
146 SADC Model Law on Gender-Based Violence (SADC Parliamentary Forum, 2022.
147 In 2005, ECOWAS amended Article 9 of the Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, among others, to provide the Economic Community of
West African States Community Court of Justice with jurisdiction to determine cases of the violation of human rights occurring in any member state.
Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 Amending the Preamble and Articles 1, 2, 9 and 30 of Protocol A/P.1/7/91 Relating to the Community Court of
Justice and Article 4 Paragraph 1 of the English Version of the said Protocol (ECOWAS, 2005).
148 For a critical review of this decision, see Ciara O’Connell, “Reconceptualising the First African Women’s Protocol Case to Work for All Women”
(2019) 19 African Human Rights Law Journal 510- 533.
149 “Victory at ECOWAS Court for Girls in Sierra Leone” (Equality Now, 12 December 2019).
XXXI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 11: International
Human Rights Mechanisms
Context
128. 52 AU Member States are State Parties to CEDAW,
of which 11 States have lodged reservations and
declarations on CEDAW. These include three States
which also have reservations to the Maputo Protocol
- Algeria, Ethiopia and Mauritius.150 The CEDAW
Committee has urged these States to withdraw their
reservations to the Convention.
129. The Committee has stated that Algeria’s reservations to
Articles 2 and 16 of CEDAW are contrary to the object
and purpose of the Convention, and thus impermissible
under Article 28 (2) of CEDAW.151 It has called on
Algeria to expedite legislative reforms, especially of the
Family Code, so that it may withdraw its reservations to
Articles 2, 15(4) and 16 of CEDAW.152
130. The CEDAW Committee has called on Ethiopia to
remove the exception to the minimum age for marriage;
to harmonise the legal provisions on bigamous and
polygamous marriage at the federal level; and to remove
its reservations to the Maputo Protocol regarding
marital rape and polygamy.153
132. Some international treaty supervision mechanisms
have issued authoritative statements on reservations
to human rights instruments. In its 1998 Statement
on Reservations, the CEDAW Committee stated that
Articles 2 and 16 of CEDAW were core provisions of the
Convention, and hence making reservations to them
was incompatible with the purpose and object of the
Convention.157
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
133. Engagements with State Parties: International human
rights mechanisms that supervise the implementation
of instruments with provisions of equivalence to the
Maputo Protocol, such as the CEDAW Committee,
should engage with State Parties, make determinations
and take other actions for the States to withdraw
reservations to women’s rights instruments.
134. The Universal Periodic Review Mechanism and
Special Procedures mandate-holders: The Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group, and other
mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, notably
relevant Special Procedures mandate-holders, should
take more robust and specific actions urging individual
states to withdraw reservations to women’s rights
instruments.
131. The CEDAW Committee has called on Mauritius to fully
implement Section 12A of the Criminal Code, including
by adopting clear regulations and protocols for
hospitals and health-care practitioners, and by raising
awareness among women and health-care providers on
access to legal abortion and post-abortion care.154 The
Committee has also asked Mauritius to collect data and
provide information on access to legal abortion and
on the number of women and girls resorting to unsafe
abortions;155 and to adequately train medical personnel
to ensure specialised attention and care for women
and girls who are victims of sexual violence, including
the provision of essential services for emergency
contraception and abortion.156
150 Reservations to CEDAW (accessible here.)
151 CEDAW Committee, “Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Algeria” CEDAW/C/DZA/
CO/3-4 23 March 2012, para 13.
152 Ibid, para 14 (b).
153 CEDAW/C/ETH/CO/8: “Concluding Observations on the Eighth Periodic Report of Ethiopia by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women” (2019) para 58.
154 CEDAW/C/MUS/CO/8 “Concluding Observations on the Eighth Periodic Report of Mauritius” (14 November 2018), para 28 (b).
155 Ibid, para 28 (c).
156 Ibid, para 28 (f).
157 A/53/38/Rev.1, “Statements on Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the
Committee” (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1998).
XXXII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 12: National Human
Rights Institutions
Context
since their data/reports are given due consideration by
relevant actors. Dialogue platforms may, for example,
be undertaken with Islamic scholars to address
reservations that stem from misunderstandings of
Islamic law.
135. NHRIs play unique roles as independent state
actors for the promotion and protection of human
rights. Domestic and international actors, including
development partners, rely on reports issued by NHRIs
to assess state accountability on human rights. NHRIs
have indeed provided advice to State Parties to the
Maputo Protocol recommending the withdrawal of
reservations.158
136. At least 36 of the continent’s NHRIs and Equality
Commissions have affiliate status with the African
Commission.159 Affiliate status with the African
Commission enables NHRIs to address the Commission
during its ordinary sessions and to submit biennial
reports to it.
137. At the continental level, the Network of African National
Human Rights Institutions (NANHRI) organises regular
meetings of NHRIs on the sidelines of ordinary sessions
of the African Commission. These meetings discuss
themes relevant to the promotion and protection of
human rights on the continent.
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
138. Leveraging specific mandates: NHRIs should leverage
their specific mandates as independent state organs
to encourage State Parties to the Maputo Protocol to
withdraw their reservations. They should provide
regular reviews to their respective States on the
reservations. In that regard, they should partner with
CSOs.
139. Use of forums and platforms: NHRIs, including
NANHRI, should use their forums and platforms
to strategise on the withdrawal of reservations to
the Maputo Protocol. They should use shadow or
alternative reports to the African Commission and
statements during sessions of the Commission to call
on State Parties to withdraw reservations to the Maputo
Protocol. They should also use their statutory reports
to make similar recommendations. Additionally, they
should collaborate with CSOs in conducting research,
158 See, for example, “Advisory on the Removal of Kenya’s Reservation on Article 14 ( 2) ( c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, n12.
159 “54th and 55th Activity Reports of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights,
2024) para 43.
XXXIII
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Chapter 13: Civil Society
Organisations
Context
140. Domestic and international CSOs have a track record
of advocating for the adoption, domestication and
implementation of the Maputo Protocol. CSOs have
undertaken research and advocacy on the impacts of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol. They have also
used shadow or alternative reports to address the
violation or abuse of women’s rights.
141. CSOs play significant roles in influencing continental
policies and programmes on gender. For example,
significant interventions have been made under
the Gender is My Agenda Campaign (GIMAC),
which provides CSOs a platform for monitoring the
implementation of the Solemn Declaration. The SOAWR
Coalition has also played critical roles in the campaign
for the full ratification of the Maputo Protocol and its
domestication and implementation.160
Suggested Approach Towards Withdrawing
Reservations
142. Research: CSOs should undertake research to enable
them to understand the in-country dynamics that
trigger State Parties to the Maputo Protocol to lodge
reservations. They should investigate the reasons for
and contexts within which specific reservations were
made.
143. Mapping the terrain and impact of reservations:
CSOs should map the terrain and the effects/impacts
of reservations to women’s rights and complement
the mapping with documented stories of those most
affected, as lived experiences can be a powerful
advocacy tool to leverage the support of the media
and members of parliament. In mapping the pro and
anti-reservations terrain, CSOs should explore the
questions: Who has power? Which is the right office?
Which argument should I use?
144. Using targeted approaches and arguments: CSOs
should employ targeted approaches and arguments
to appeal to different demographic groups on the
importance of withdrawing reservations to the Maputo
Protocol. In particular, they should work closely and
take account of the needs and views of marginalised
sectors of society, including youth, older persons and
persons with disabilities, who face particular adverse
impacts from reservations to the Maputo Protocol. CSOs
should identify influential government officials with
whom they can work. While certain sectors of society
may be approached using the human rights framework
of analysis, other groups may be reached using a
values framework of analysis. For example, increased
deaths of women and girls because of reservations
to the Protocol may resonate with faith-based groups
concerned about the right to life. CSOs should engage
with rather than simply dismiss arguments that are
contrary to their perspectives.
145. Undertaking capacity-building and awarenessraising: CSOs should undertake capacity-building
initiatives for State officials, and they should undertake
awareness-raising campaigns for the public.
146. Advocating for law reform: CSOs should leverage law
reform processes to make the case for the repeal or
revision of laws that undermine women’s rights. In that
regard, CSOs should liaise with bar associations which
work to uphold human rights.
147. Litigating before the African Court: NGOs with
standing before the African Court should file cases
before it, challenging the validity of country-specific
reservations to the Maputo Protocol.
148. Leveraging opportunities: CSOs should identify key
high-level forums taking place in their countries onto
which they can hook their campaigns. They should also
leverage international institutions and development
partners based in their countries. UN partner
institutions, such as the United Nations Development
Programme, work with states on a regular basis and, as
such, have influence which they may bring to bear on
the withdrawal of reservations.
149.Media: CSOs should systematically use mainstream
media and social media to highlight the impacts of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol and, thereby,
to put pressure on State Parties with reservations to
the Protocol. They should use media innovatively,
including through storytelling, audio-visual and
pictorials.
150. Information hubs: CSOs should establish hubs to
share current information on ongoing judicial efforts
and decisions across the different levels of courts and
tribunals on the continent.
160 See, for example, “Maputo Protocol at 20” (accessible here.)
XXXIV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
151. Shadow or alternative periodic reports: CSOs should
submit shadow or alternative reports to relevant treaty
bodies (such as the African Commission, the Committee
of Experts, and the CEDAW Committee).
152. Collaboration with Special Mechanisms: CSOs should
identify and engage with mandate-holders of Special
Mechanisms. CSOs should provide these Mechanisms
with credible information.
153. Strategic litigation: CSOs should file triable
communications/cases before the African Commission,
the Committee of Experts, the African Court, and
tribunals of RECs, as appropriate, to seek remedies
for women and girls whose rights are impacted by
reservations and, while doing so, move those legal
bodies to declare such reservations as incompatible
with the object and purpose of the relevant human
rights instruments.
154. Special Rapporteur: CSOs should partner with and
facilitate the Special Rapporteur when the Rapporteur
undertakes advocacy visits on the withdrawal of
reservations to the Maputo Protocol. CSOs should
leverage their fundraising capacities to enable the
Special Rapporteur to undertake such visits, noting that
the African Commission tends not to have adequate
resources under its AU budget to support many such
visits.
XXXV
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Conclusion
155. This Advocacy Framework has provided guidance to State Parties to the
Maputo Protocol and other stakeholders on the standards and process
for withdrawing reservations to the Protocol. By implementing or taking
account of many or some of the proposals made in the Advocacy Framework,
stakeholders across the continent will facilitate the full implementation of
the Maputo Protocol.
156. In the past two decades, the key priority towards ensuring the rights of
women in Africa has been anchored on ensuring the full ratification and
domestication of the Maputo Protocol. While this priority has not been
realised fully, the AU and its Member States, as well as non-state actors on
the continent, have taken significant strides towards ensuring the rights of
women. The priority for the next few years needs to focus more on ensuring
the full implementation of the Maputo Protocol. Effective implementation
of the Protocol is contingent on the withdrawal of reservations. Moving
forward, it is incumbent on State Parties to the Maputo Protocol, the organs
that supervise implementation of the Protocol, and non-state actors to
employ concerted and accountable means to achieve the withdrawal of the
reservations.
XXXVI
Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations to some Provisions of the Protocol
to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa
Annex: Resolution on the Need to Raise
Awareness for States to Withdraw Reservations
on some Provisions of the Maputo Protocol
- ACHPR/Res.632 (LXXXII)
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights (the Commission) convened at its 83rd
Ordinary Session from 25 February to -11 March
2025.
Recalling the Commission’s mandate to promote
and safeguard human and peoples’ rights in Africa,
as outlined in Article 45 of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter);
Considering Article 45 of the African Charter
entitles the Commission to formulate and lay down
principles and rules to solve legal problems relating
to human and peoples’ rights and fundamental
freedoms upon which African Governments may
base their legislations.
Reaffirming the principles enshrined in Article 4
of the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU),
particularly Article 4 (l), which highlights the
promotion of gender equality;
Recognizing the Protocol to the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol) and the
positive impact its effective implementation and
domestication would bring to the lives of African
women, as well as the advancement of gender
equality across the continent;
Acknowledging that some State Parties to the
Maputo Protocol have made reservations on
certain provisions of the Protocol, limiting the full
realization of the rights and protections guaranteed
under the Protocol;
Taking into account that certain reservations made
to the Protocol undermine its fundamental purpose
and essence, thereby impeding its capacity to
provide effective and substantial safeguarding of
women’s rights throughout the continent;
Recognizing
the
critical
significance
of
guaranteeing the complete realization of all articles
of the Maputo Protocol, without any reservations,
to fulfill its goals of advancing gender equality and
safeguarding women’s rights in Africa;
Emphasizing the necessity of promoting and
assisting States that have not yet ratified the
Maputo Protocol to do so without reservations,
to guarantee that every African woman can avail
herself of the entirety of the Protocol’s provisions;
Acknowledging the imperative for an Advocacy
Framework to raise awareness about reservations
of certain provisions of the Maputo Protocol and
the need to guarantee the universal application of
its provisions to enable women across Africa to
access its protections fully;
Reiterating the AU’s dedication to the complete and
efficient enforcement of the Maputo Protocol as a
pivotal tool for advancing women’s empowerment
and achieving gender equality in Africa;
The Commission decides to:
1. Develop a Framework for Advocacy to raise
awareness for lifting Reservations on some
provisions of the Maputo Protocol.
2. Direct the Special Rapporteur on the Rights
of Women in Africa to develop the Advocacy
Framework in collaboration with relevant Partners
and other stakeholders.
XXXVII
achpr.au.int
au-banju@africanunion.org
@achpr_cadhp
soawr.org
info@soawr.org
@soawr-coalition
equalitynow.org
programs@equalitynow.org
@equality-now