Skip to main content
NGOsource 501(c)(3) Equivalent ACHPR Observer · N°553Observateur CADHP · n° 553 Co-Chair · GIZ/BMZ SEA-T CouncilCoprésidence · Conseil SEA-T GIZ/BMZ TransparencyTransparence Candid Seal 2025Sceau Candid 2025

Article 14: the Maputo Protocol’s most reserved article

Seven of the nine States with reservations or declarations limit Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol on health and reproductive rights in some way.

Africa 4 min read
Article 14: the Maputo Protocol's most reserved article. 7 of 9 States: States whose reservations or declarations touch Article 14

Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol guarantees women’s health and reproductive rights. It is also the article most affected by reservations. RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol shows that seven of the nine States that still limit the Protocol do so, in part, on Article 14. This article brings the country data together.

What Article 14 guarantees

The report’s annex on reserved provisions summarises the parts of Article 14 that States have limited. Article 14(1)(a) to (c) covers the right of women to control their fertility, including decisions on having children and on contraception. Article 14(2)(c) requires States to authorise medical abortion in cases of sexual violence and where the pregnancy endangers the mother’s health or life.

Which States limit Article 14

  • Algeria reserved Article 14 in full, without giving reasons.
  • Kenya reserved Article 14(2)(c), citing its domestic legislation.
  • Mauritius reserved Article 14(2)(c) where a pregnancy has exceeded 14 weeks.
  • Uganda reserved Article 14(1)(a) and Article 14(2)(c).
  • The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic reserved Article 14(1)(a) to (c) and Article 14(2)(c).
  • Ethiopia made an interpretive declaration on Article 14(1)(b).
  • Cameroon’s general declaration “creates uncertainty about how Cameroon applies Article 14(2)(c)”.

Only Namibia and South Africa hold no reservation or declaration on Article 14. Their reservations concern marriage registration and, in South Africa’s case, other provisions where national law is already more protective.

The human cost

The African Commission’s Advocacy Framework does not treat these reservations as technical. On Kenya, it finds that the reservation “leaves women and girls to procure unsafe abortions, increasing maternal mortality”. On Uganda, it finds that survivors of rape are “compelled to carry pregnancies to term”. In its March 2024 concluding observations on Uganda, the Commission found that unsafe abortion accounts for 26 per cent of maternal mortality in the country.

Domestic law often goes further

In several States, national law already permits what the reservation excludes. Kenya’s Constitution of 2010, in Article 26(4), permits abortion where, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment or the life or health of the mother is in danger. The brief concludes that Kenya’s reservation “protects a narrower position than the Constitution itself”.

Cameroon’s Penal Code of 2016, in Section 339, allows abortion to save the mother from serious danger to her health, and in cases of rape. Mauritius’s Criminal Code, as amended in 2012, permits termination in specific cases up to 14 weeks.

Uganda’s Constitution, in Article 22(2), anticipates a law setting out when termination is authorised. The brief on Uganda argues that such a law would allow the country to align with Article 14(2)(c).

The Commission’s position

The African Commission has already called for change. In 2022 it recommended that Kenya withdraw its reservation to Article 14(2)(c), “since Article 26(4) of the Constitution permits abortion for the same reasons”. In March 2024 it asked Uganda to consider lifting its reservations on Articles 14 and 21, and to adopt legislation allowing safe abortion as provided in Article 14(2)(c). The Advocacy Framework also asks the Commission to consider thematic resolutions on the most frequently reserved articles, including Article 14.

Withdrawal has happened before

Two States have already lifted reservations on this article. The Gambia withdrew its reservation to Article 14, among others, in 2006. Rwanda withdrew its reservation to Article 14(2)(c) in 2012. Their experience shows that a reservation on reproductive health can be lifted.

Where to start

Several country briefs point to Article 14 as the place to begin. The brief on Algeria suggests a partial withdrawal starting with Article 14(2)(c). The brief on Mauritius asks it to review Article 14(2)(c) early, so that the guarantee applies where a woman’s life or health is in danger after 14 weeks. The brief on Kenya asks for the 2022 recommendation to be implemented. The brief on Uganda asks Parliament to adopt the law envisaged by Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

RFLD’s related work on women’s health and rights can be found in its country profiles on women’s rights laws, which set out national legislation across the continent.

About the report

Cover of the RFLD report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol
Download the full report (PDF, English).

This article draws on RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol, published on 4 October 2026. Read the summary, download the English edition or the French edition.

SharefXinWA
A
Published by
Africa · RFLD

Réseau des Femmes Leaders pour le Développement — a pan-African feminist network advancing women's rights, SRHR, civic space and climate justice across 35+ African countries since 2013.

Stay close to the movement.
Field notes, data releases and calls for proposals, in English or French. No more than one email a month.

Stand with African women. Your support moves resources to the frontline.Partner with usDonate