January 5, 2001
I have been reading the various articles and rejoinders for and against the HB 22 Bill that is before the House of Representatives in Nigeria. This bill is specifically targeted towards outlawing what the proponents tag Female Genital Mutilation. Whilst, I am not a medical practitioner, I think the use of the word mutilation is a misnomer, since what I have been reading so far refers in essence to female circumcision.
With this mix up in terminology, it is apparent that the proponents have started their crusade on a false premise. As a student, in the United Kingdom in the early 1980’s, I heard first-hand about ‘female genital mutilation’ from a Sudanese lady, who had a sutured labia with only a small orifice for urination. This according to her was performed as a cultural rite in order to checkmate any sexual intercourse prior to marriage. The sutured labia therefore can only be opened on her wedding night, as a test of her virginity to the bridegroom. This to me is ‘genital mutilation’ and not the ‘circumcision’, which our forebears have carried out since time immemorial. Dr. Omoigui, who is a medical professional, must have an intimate understanding of the physiology of the female vagina, and he clearly articulated this in his essay of opposition to the bill. The only fear that could have been expressed in this regard would have been the use of quack doctors or inexperienced traditionalists in performing the procedure. Modern surgical techniques have obviously laid this fear to rest.
Be this as it may, it has always been my understanding that in passing a Bill of this nature, clear-cut scientific proof must be shown to justify its proposed relevance in the life and health of the women at large. Our forerunners carried out the circumcision both on the male and female population for some good reasons. It has been a cultural norm in those ethnic groups that perform the procedure in Nigeria. In the male, apart from the Biblical injunction, which mandates circumcision, modern medicine has shown that the after effect of the procedure is healthy. So, what are the scientific evidences that question the utility of female circumcision in the Nigerian woman? The fact that the West does not perform circumcision as a norm is not enough reason to attack our values.
Obviously, we are carrying the idea of westernization too far, as some of us are willing to export western values to displace our cultural anchors without solid proof. Has there been statistically valid surveys and experiments carried out within the indigenous Nigerian population justifying such a move? The proponents have not provided evidence that within Nigeria (a country comprised of about 250 ethnic groups, with majority of them having the same well-tested cultural norm in this regard) there has been an adverse effect of ‘circumcision’ on the female population. They need to prove this for the Bill to be passed.
My fear is Western values are catching up so fast with our so-called ‘liberated’ women that they jump into the fad of "female genital mutilation" (mixed up with circumcision) without providing good reasons why we need this at this phase of our growth. Most of their arguments have been based on emotions and copycat tendency. The various women that are in the vanguard for the passing of this Bill have not told us what the effects of circumcision on their respective persons have been. Perhaps, it is time for them to tell the world the excruciating pain, adverse health and physiological handicaps suffered if any from the circumcision performed on them.
Finally, given the widespread circumcision carried out in Nigeria, I do not know how the HB22 Bill if passed would ever be enforced. There is no need just sending a Bill to the house that has been signed by a handful of people (less than 100) in a population of about 120 million in Nigeria. The proponents have not debated the issue amongst the indigenous women population likely to be affected. No publicity given to convince the ethnic groups whose cultural and religious values are going to be assailed if the proposed Bill is passed. If passed, HB 22 would just be a statistical Bill that would immediately be consigned to the archives. Hence, I oppose the passing of the Bill. We need more information, specific to the Nigerian or African population, before informed judgment can be made about the pros and cons of female circumcision. Otherwise, we would only be making a mockery of one of the anchors of our ancient cultural values.
Guides
