Why protecting African values must include women's rights

The Draft African Charter on the  Protection of the Family, Sovereignty, and Religious and Cultural Values presents itself as an effort to protect African families, cultural identity, religious values, parental authority and national sovereignty.

However, it also proposes changes to how  African states approach reproductive health, abortion, sexuality education, gender equality and existing legal agreements.

These proposals raise important questions about their compatibility with protections African states have already accepted under the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, commonly known as the Maputo Protocol.

The draft Charter goes beyond general statements about protecting families and cultural values. It proposes specific approaches to legislation, education, healthcare and existing international agreements.

These include reviewing existing legal and policy instruments, redefining reproductive-health-related terms, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, addressing abortion and the protection of children before and after birth, emphasising parental authority over children’s upbringing and education, and reviewing sexuality-education programmes and reproductive-health policies.

The main concerns involve redefining reproductive-health terms, opposing abortion rights, reviewing or removing sexuality-education programmes, and reconsidering existing legal instruments.

The Maputo Protocol guarantees protections relating to women’s equality, reproductive health, reproductive decision-making and freedom from harmful practices.

Article 14 recognises women’s rights to control their fertility, decide whether to have children, determine the number and spacing of their children, choose contraceptive methods and access family-planning education.

By contrast, the draft Charter proposes reviewing, redefining or withdrawing from instruments considered inconsistent with its objectives. It also rejects references to sexual and reproductive health and rights in legal and policy instruments.

The legal concern is straightforward: the Maputo Protocol treats reproductive decision-making and access to contraception as rights that states parties must protect. Policies introduced under the draft Charter that restrict access to contraception, family-planning information or reproductive choices could therefore conflict with Article 14.

Similar concerns arise over abortion. The Maputo Protocol requires states parties to authorise medical abortion in specified circumstances, including sexual assault, rape, incest, and where continuing a pregnancy endangers a woman’s mental or physical health or the life of the woman or foetus.

The draft Charter rejects the existence of an international right to abortion and argues that there is no international legal obligation to finance or facilitate it.

Although the Maputo Protocol does not guarantee unrestricted access to abortion in every circumstance, policies preventing access in the situations covered by Article 14(2)(c) could violate obligations states have already accepted.

Differences also emerge over sexuality education. The draft Charter’s preamble condemns comprehensive sexuality education, while Article 6 calls for existing programmes to be reviewed and materials considered inconsistent with its objectives removed.

Meanwhile, the Maputo Protocol protects access to family-planning education and requires states parties to provide health information, education and communication programmes. Restrictions on sexuality education could therefore undermine access to information protected by existing treaty obligations.

Both instruments recognise the importance of culture and religion. However, the Maputo Protocol requires states to eliminate harmful practices that violate women’s rights, while the draft Charter prioritises preserving cultural and religious values.

Conflict could arise if these values were used to justify restrictions on rights protected under the Protocol.

The draft also emphasises national sovereignty, proposing the review or withdrawal from instruments considered inconsistent with its objectives.

However, sovereignty does not automatically cancel treaty obligations voluntarily accepted by states.

Other African human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, recognise cultural identity and family life while protecting equality, education, health and human dignity.

Ultimately, the question is not whether African families and cultures deserve protection. It is whether that protection can be pursued without weakening rights and legal commitments African states have already accepted.

African values and human rights should not be treated as opposing goals. Protecting families must also mean safeguarding the dignity, health, equality and rights of the people within them.

The Draft African Charter on the Protection of the Family, Sovereignty, and Religious and Cultural Values presents itself as an effort to protect African families, cultural identity, religious values, parental authority and national sovereignty.

However, it also proposes changes to how African states approach reproductive health, abortion, sexuality education, gender equality and existing legal agreements.

These proposals raise important questions about their compatibility with protections African states have already accepted under the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, commonly known as the Maputo Protocol.

The draft Charter goes beyond general statements about protecting families and cultural values. It proposes specific approaches to legislation, education, healthcare and existing international agreements.

These include reviewing existing legal and policy instruments, redefining reproductive-health-related terms, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, addressing abortion and the protection of children before and after birth, emphasising parental authority over children’s upbringing and education, and reviewing sexuality-education programmes and reproductive-health policies.

The main concerns involve redefining reproductive-health terms, opposing abortion rights, reviewing or removing sexuality-education programmes, and reconsidering existing legal instruments.

The Maputo Protocol guarantees protections relating to women’s equality, reproductive health, reproductive decision-making and freedom from harmful practices.

Article 14 recognises women’s rights to control their fertility, decide whether to have children, determine the number and spacing of their children, choose contraceptive methods and access family-planning education.

By contrast, the draft Charter proposes reviewing, redefining or withdrawing from instruments considered inconsistent with its objectives. It also rejects references to sexual and reproductive health and rights in legal and policy instruments.

The legal concern is straightforward: the Maputo Protocol treats reproductive decision-making and access to contraception as rights that states parties must protect. Policies introduced under the draft Charter that restrict access to contraception, family-planning information or reproductive choices could therefore conflict with Article 14.

Similar concerns arise over abortion. The Maputo Protocol requires states parties to authorise medical abortion in specified circumstances, including sexual assault, rape, incest, and where continuing a pregnancy endangers a woman’s mental or physical health or the life of the woman or foetus.

The draft Charter rejects the existence of an international right to abortion and argues that there is no international legal obligation to finance or facilitate it.

Although the Maputo Protocol does not guarantee unrestricted access to abortion in every circumstance, policies preventing access in the situations covered by Article 14(2)(c) could violate obligations states have already accepted.

Differences also emerge over sexuality education. The draft Charter’s preamble condemns comprehensive sexuality education, while Article 6 calls for existing programmes to be reviewed and materials considered inconsistent with its objectives removed.

Meanwhile, the Maputo Protocol protects access to family-planning education and requires states parties to provide health information, education and communication programmes. Restrictions on sexuality education could therefore undermine access to information protected by existing treaty obligations.

Both instruments recognise the importance of culture and religion. However, the Maputo Protocol requires states to eliminate harmful practices that violate women’s rights, while the draft Charter prioritises preserving cultural and religious values.

Conflict could arise if these values were used to justify restrictions on rights protected under the Protocol.

The draft also emphasises national sovereignty, proposing the review or withdrawal from instruments considered inconsistent with its objectives.

However, sovereignty does not automatically cancel treaty obligations voluntarily accepted by states.

Other African human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, recognise cultural identity and family life while protecting equality, education, health and human dignity.

Ultimately, the question is not whether African families and cultures deserve protection. It is whether that protection can be pursued without weakening rights and legal commitments African states have already accepted.

African values and human rights should not be treated as opposing goals. Protecting families must also mean safeguarding the dignity, health, equality and rights of the people within them.