Sierra Leone first lady rejects calls to condemn FGM without what she says is reliable data on harms

Fatima Maada Bio, the first lady of Sierra Leone and wife of President Julius Maada Bio, has declined to condemn female genital mutilation, drawing renewed public criticism and prompting an exchange with health professionals and survivors, according to an exclusive report by The Guardian. The dispute centers on her reported refusal to take a categorical position on FGM without what she described as reliable data about the harms attributed to the practice.

In her response to the outlet, Fatima Maada Bio denied that she supports female genital mutilation, while saying she would not condemn it without dependable evidence. The statement comes amid rising anger over remarks attributed to the first lady and over what critics say is her perceived approval of FGM, particularly in a country where the practice remains a sensitive issue linked to community traditions and public health.

The Guardian reports that an open letter has been circulating among health professionals, survivors, and politicians who say they are concerned that the first lady’s comments undermine efforts to protect girls and women. The letter and the accompanying public debate highlight the stakes for family life and community health, with signatories urging the government’s household leadership to adopt a clear and immediate condemnation.

Fatima Maada Bio’s position, as described in the report, attempts to shift the focus from moral denunciation to the evidentiary basis for condemnation. The Guardian says she asked for reliable data on the harms of FGM, rather than accepting calls for blanket condemnation based on the claims of others. Critics, the report adds, have viewed the stance as inconsistent with public campaigns that seek to end the practice.

The controversy places the first lady at the center of a broader governance and public information question: what standard of evidence public officials should use when they speak on policies and practices that affect bodily autonomy, health outcomes, and community protections. It also tests how quickly government figures can respond to advocacy demands when public statements may be interpreted as tolerating or discouraging prevention efforts.

As of this report, the immediate next steps are tied to whether further clarifications are issued and whether public bodies and campaign groups respond to the first lady’s call for better data. The Guardian indicates the dispute has moved beyond private disagreement into a public process involving professional groups, survivors, and elected officials, raising expectations for clearer guidance from the country’s leadership on a practice that critics say harms girls and women.