Justice Tuiyott backs scrutiny of adult consent in FGM cases
National
By
Mate Tongola
| Apr 29, 2026
Court of Appeal Judge Francis Tuiyott has called for deeper scrutiny of adult consent in Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) cases, questioning whether such decisions are voluntary or shaped by cultural and societal pressures.
Appearing before the Judicial Service Commission for vetting of the Supreme Court judge position, Justice Tuiyott said that any legal consideration of FGM must balance personal autonomy with the broader social context that influences individual choices.
“While an adult may appear to consent, the real question is whether that consent is free or driven by societal and cultural expectations,” he said.
Tuiyott noted that a judge must examine the purpose of laws outlawing FGM alongside the country’s historical context, noting that autonomy over one’s body remains a fundamental principle.
READ MORE
Poor pay, double taxation and falling incomes mask Kenya's growth
Agro-based firms decline weighs on industrial growth
Nairobi tops African peers in attracting big startup capital
Tech envoy: Kenya taking the lead in adoption of digital tools
Amsons Group pledges Sh4.5b for hospitals
Rewriting the Future of Trade Unionism in Kenya
How data-driven personalisation is rewiring the insurance industry
Tourism rebounds with 2.5 million arrivals
Unfavourable rains slow down agriculture output to 3.1 per cent
Govt relaxes fuel standards to avert shortages amid global supply strain
Reflecting on his 36-year legal career, he said his transition from legal practice to the Bench was motivated by a desire to address injustice and inequality. “Serving as a judge allowed me to make a direct contribution, however small, to the cause of justice,” he said.
Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, who questioned Tuiyott during the interview, also sought his views on the Constitution’s transformative nature and the doctrine of basic structure.
Tuiyott agreed that the Constitution is transformative but maintained that all its provisions are amendable.
He referenced the Court of Appeal’s position in the BBI dispute, where judges supported the application of the basic structure doctrine, introducing a four-tier test for constitutional amendments.
However, he acknowledged that the Supreme Court later clarified the matter, affirming that no part of the Constitution is beyond amendment.