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
§ RFLD

Decisions and enforcement: when courts rule on women’s rights in Africa

Three landmark African decisions on women's rights, from the ruling to implementation, with compliance data and practical steps for civil society.

Last updated · October 18, 2026

Women won in court. Then what?. Mali 2018, Sierra Leone 2019, DR Congo 2023. RFLD.

Winning a case is only half the work. This module of the Maputo Protocol Hub follows landmark African decisions on women’s rights, from the ruling to its implementation. Each fact sheet gives the court, the facts, what was ordered and what is publicly known about compliance. The last sections explain why so many decisions stay on paper and what civil society can do about it.

Last checked: October 2026. Every fact below comes from the decision itself or from the organisations that litigated the case. Sources are listed at the end.

Fact sheet 1. Mali, 2018: APDF and IHRDA v. Republic of Mali

The case

  • Court: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Application No. 046/2016, reported at (2018) 2 AfCLR 380.
  • Applicants: the Association pour le progrès et la défense des droits des femmes maliennes (APDF) and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA). The Registry received the application on 26 July 2016.
  • Judgment: 11 May 2018, unanimous. Mali took part in the proceedings and asked the Court to dismiss the case.

The facts

The case challenged Law No. 2011-087 on the Persons and Family Code. The National Assembly adopted it on 2 December 2011 and the President promulgated it on 30 December 2011. Article 281 set the minimum age of marriage at 18 for men and 16 for women. Administrative authorities could allow a girl to marry at 15 for “compelling reasons”. The Code did not ensure that both spouses freely consented to a religious marriage. By default, it applied religious and customary rules to inheritance, which disadvantaged women and children born outside marriage.

What the Court found

  • On the age of marriage, Mali violated Article 6(b) of the Maputo Protocol and Articles 2 and 21 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC).
  • On consent, Mali violated Article 6(a) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 16(1)(b) of CEDAW.
  • On inheritance, Mali violated Article 21(1) and (2) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 3 of the ACRWC.
  • On harmful practices and discrimination, the Court found further violations of Article 2 of the Maputo Protocol and of the ACRWC. It also found violations of Articles 5(a) and 16(1) of CEDAW.

IHRDA describes this as the first case in which the African Court applied the Maputo Protocol.

What the Court ordered

Mali had to amend the Code and bring its law in line with the treaties it ratified. It also had to inform and educate the public, as Article 25 of the African Charter requires. The Court asked Mali to report on the measures taken within two years.

Implementation

The Code has not been amended. In its implementation status report as at 31 December 2024, the African Court records for Mali: “No information available. No implementation report was received, despite reminders sent to that effect.” IHRDA held a public dialogue in Mali on implementation in March 2023. In 2024, IHRDA told both the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and the African Commission that the orders “remain unfulfilled by the Malian government”. Girls in Mali can still be married at 16.

Fact sheet 2. Sierra Leone, 2019: WAVES and CWS-SL v. Sierra Leone

The case

  • Court: ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, Application ECW/CCJ/APP/22/18, Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/37/19 of 12 December 2019, delivered in Abuja.
  • Applicants: Women Against Violence and Exploitation in Society (WAVES) and the Child Welfare Society Sierra Leone (CWS-SL), with Equality Now and IHRDA. They filed the case in May 2018. Amnesty International intervened as amicus curiae.

The facts

During the Ebola crisis, schools closed for nine months and teenage pregnancies rose sharply. In April 2015, the government formally barred pregnant girls from mainstream schools and from sitting exams. The Minister who lifted the ban in 2020 referred to an earlier government decision of 2010. Instead of mainstream classes, the government set up separate schools for pregnant girls. They opened three days a week and taught four subjects. The government at first denied that any policy existed.

What the Court found

The Court held that a sporadic practice had become State policy. The ban and the separate schools were discriminatory and violated the right to education. Equality Now reports findings under the African Charter and under UN treaties, including the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education. The Court also found that the government had not done enough to reduce teenage pregnancy.

What the Court ordered

  • Revoke the ban with immediate effect.
  • Abolish the separate schools for pregnant girls.
  • Run nationwide strategies to change attitudes towards pregnant girls and teenage mothers, so that they can stay in school.
  • Put in place social programmes that address teenage pregnancy and sensitise communities against discrimination.

Implementation

Implementation is partial. On 30 March 2020, the Minister of Basic and Senior Secondary Education announced that the ban was “overturned with immediate effect”. The National Policy on Radical Inclusion in Schools followed in 2021. Parliament enacted the Basic and Senior Secondary Education Act on 24 April 2023, which builds on parts of that policy. Human Rights Watch still found in 2023 that stigma and cost keep many young mothers out of class. ESCR-Net notes that most orders beyond lifting the ban remain unimplemented. At a public dialogue in Freetown in March 2024, IHRDA welcomed “commendable strides” and called for more work towards full implementation.

Fact sheet 3. DR Congo, 2023: S.A. v. Democratic Republic of Congo

The case

  • Body: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 502/14.
  • Complainants: REDRESS and Synergie pour l’assistance judiciaire aux victimes de violation des droits humains au Nord Kivu (SAJ), on behalf of the survivor. They filed the communication on 21 November 2014. TRIAL filed an amicus brief in 2017.
  • Decision: adopted on the merits in 2023. According to REDRESS, the Commission sent it to the parties on 18 November 2025, which is when it became public. The DRC did not file arguments on the merits.

The facts

On 29 October 2008, during fighting in North Kivu, a sergeant of the Congolese army left the front and went to his home near Goma. At gunpoint, he raped his neighbour, who was two months pregnant. He also took the family’s savings of 120 US dollars and a radio. On 17 November 2008, the Operational Military Tribunal of North Kivu sentenced him to life imprisonment and dismissed him from the army. It ordered him and the State, jointly, to pay 10,000 US dollars in damages. No one appealed, so the judgment became final. The survivor got the radio back. She never received the money. Congolese law prevents enforcement against public assets, which blocks payment by the State.

What the Commission found

The DRC violated Articles 1, 7 and 14 of the African Charter. It also violated Articles 4(2)(f) and 8 of the Maputo Protocol. Article 4(2)(f) requires States to provide reparation for survivors of violence against women. Article 8 guarantees access to justice. The Commission found no separate violation of the prohibition of torture, because Congolese courts had already recognised the State’s responsibility.

What the Commission ordered

  • Execute the military judgment in full, including the sentence.
  • Pay the 10,000 US dollars in damages and the 120 US dollars, with 6% interest from the date of the military judgment.
  • Create a legal and institutional framework to enforce court decisions, including a compensation fund.
  • Report in writing on implementation within 180 days of notification.

Implementation

REDRESS reports that the decision is still pending implementation. We found no public report from the State.

Two further decisions against the DRC

Communication 686/18 (Fizi). On 1 January 2011, Congolese soldiers attacked civilians in Fizi Territory, South Kivu. The communication was filed for 53 survivors, 52 of them women, by the Association des femmes avocates défenseures des droits humains, IHRDA and Equality Now. The decision was transmitted in May 2025. The Commission recognised the sexual violence as torture. It ordered the State to prosecute and punish those responsible within six months and to compensate the survivors. It also ordered care for the survivors and a public apology. Training on women’s rights must reach the armed forces and the justice system. The 180-day reporting deadline passed on 7 November 2025 without a State report, according to REDRESS.

Communication 700/18 (Minova). In 2012 and 2013, retreating Congolese army units committed mass rapes and killings in and around Minova. IHRDA and the same association of women lawyers brought the case for 1,016 identified victims. A military court had acquitted most of the accused in 2014. The Commission adopted its decision in 2024 and disclosed it in April 2025. It found violations of almost every provision claimed and treated the rapes as torture. Its orders include prosecutions and a memorial.

The enforcement problem

The African Court

Under Article 30 of its Protocol, States undertake to comply with the Court’s judgments within the time set. Article 31 requires the Court to tell the African Union Assembly which States have not complied. In practice, compliance is very low. The Court’s 2024 Activity Report states that of more than 259 decisions adopted, less than 10% have been fully implemented. Its implementation status report as at 31 December 2024 found violations in 89 cases against 10 States. Only 2 of those cases, both against Burkina Faso, had been fully implemented. The other 87 were pending full implementation.

Access is also shrinking. As at 31 December 2024, 34 of the 55 African Union member States had ratified the Court’s Protocol. Only 8 allowed individuals and NGOs to file cases directly under Article 34(6). Rwanda, Tanzania, Benin and Côte d’Ivoire withdrew their declarations between 2016 and 2020.

The ECOWAS Court

The ECOWAS Court has no enforcement arm of its own. Article 24 of its 2005 Supplementary Protocol requires each member State to appoint a national authority to execute judgments, and many have not done so. In October 2025, the Court’s President put enforcement at about 30% of decisions. In December 2025, the Deputy Chief Registrar cited a rate of 22%.

The African Commission

The Commission’s decisions take the form of recommendations to the State. Rule 125 of its 2020 Rules of Procedure sets the follow-up steps:

  • the State must report in writing within 180 days of receiving the decision, and the complainant has 60 days to comment;
  • the Commission can ask for more information within 90 days, and can send a reminder with a further 90 days if the State is silent;
  • a Rapporteur monitors implementation and can consider information from interested parties;
  • the Commission reports publicly at each ordinary session and states the status of implementation in its Activity Report;
  • it can refer cases of non-compliance to the political organs of the African Union.

The record is weak. The best-known study, by Frans Viljoen and Lirette Louw, reviewed 44 decisions adopted between 1987 and 2003. It found full implementation in only 14% of them.

What civil society can do

  1. Use the follow-up rules. Under Rule 125(6), the Rapporteur can consider information from interested parties. Send short, dated updates on what the State has or has not done. For African Court judgments, share information with the Court’s Registry before it prepares its report to the Assembly.
  2. Bring decisions into every review. Cite unimplemented decisions in shadow reports to the African Commission and to UN bodies. Our CEDAW and UPR calendar shows the next dates for each country.
  3. Work with national institutions. National human rights institutions with affiliate status can report on implementation under Rule 125(2). Ministries of justice and parliamentary committees decide on budgets and law reform.
  4. Organise public dialogues. IHRDA’s dialogues in Mali and Sierra Leone brought officials and civil society together around one judgment. They create a public record of commitments.
  5. Translate and share decisions. Short summaries in national and local languages help survivors know their rights. Always protect survivors’ identities and seek their consent before any public use of their story.
  6. Support the survivors. Reparation takes years. Survivors need health care and legal support while they wait. Complainant organisations in S.A. updated the Commission on the survivor’s health in 2024 and 2025.

Why this matters

The Maputo Protocol is ratified by 46 of the 55 African Union member States. These cases show that its rights can be argued and won before African courts and the African Commission. They also show that a ruling changes little without sustained follow-up. RFLD brings together 1,143 member organisations in more than 35 African countries and holds Observer Status N°553 with the African Commission. We will add new decisions to this module and track State reports on implementation. Members with information on a case can write to programs@rflgd.org.

References

SharefXinWA

Advance gender justice with RFLD

A pan-African network of 1,143 member organisations across 35+ countries: advocacy, research, re-granting and direct service delivery.

Donate Partner with us Contact
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