The nine States that still limit the Maputo Protocol through reservations or declarations each have their own reasons. Yet some arguments apply to all of them. RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol identifies four such arguments, drawn from treaty law and from the African Commission’s Advocacy Framework, adopted in 2026. Together they form the backbone of every country brief.
1. Object and purpose
Neither the Maputo Protocol nor the African Charter contains an express provision on reservations. The general rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties therefore apply. Article 19(c) of that Convention forbids a reservation that is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.
The report defines the object and purpose of the Maputo Protocol as “the elimination of discrimination against women and the guarantee of their rights”. A reservation that removes a core guarantee, such as equality in marriage or access to reproductive health care, sits uneasily with that aim. The Advocacy Framework asks the African Commission to identify which provisions are “core” and cannot be reserved at all.
2. Article 31 makes protective reservations unnecessary
Some States argue that their domestic law protects women better than the Protocol. Article 31 of the Protocol already answers that concern. It provides that more favourable national provisions prevail. The Advocacy Framework describes reservations made on this basis as “superfluous in light of Article 31 of the Protocol”.
This argument applies most directly to South Africa, whose reservations aim to keep South African law more favourable to women. It also applies to parts of Ethiopia’s reasoning. The report’s toolkit puts the point in one line: “Then the reservation is unnecessary.”
3. States with Muslim-majority populations apply the Protocol in full
Some reservations are justified by reference to religion. The Advocacy Framework notes that “at least eight State Parties with majority or significant minority Muslim populations have not made reservations”. They are Djibouti, The Gambia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia. The Gambia had made reservations and withdrew them in 2006.
The framework also asks States to avoid cultural relativism and to engage critically with claims that particular provisions contravene Islamic law. The practice of these eight States gives advocates a concrete reference point in that conversation.
4. Declarations that change the law are reservations
Some States describe their statements as declarations or interpretations. The framework applies the test of the UN Human Rights Committee: if a statement, whatever its name, purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty provision in its application to the State, it is a reservation. This matters for Cameroon’s general declaration and for the interpretive declarations of Ethiopia and South Africa.
What a reservation does not do
Alongside these arguments, the report clears up common misunderstandings about the reach of a reservation. A reservation to the Protocol:
- does not remove the State’s obligations on equality under the African Charter itself
- does not prevent the African Commission from asking questions when it examines a State report
- does not bind other States or treaty bodies
- does not last forever, since it can be withdrawn at any time
These points matter in practice. They mean that the Commission can raise a reserved provision during a State’s periodic review, and that the African Charter’s equality guarantees continue to apply in full.
A further rule on domestic law
Several reservations rely on domestic legislation. Here the report points to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, which states that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. As the toolkit puts it: “Ratification was a promise to bring the law in line.”
Putting the arguments to work
Each country brief applies these arguments to a specific State, selecting the ones that fit best. The brief on South Africa leans on Article 31. The brief on the Sahrawi Republic draws on the practice of Muslim-majority States Parties and on the State’s own constitutional guarantee of equality. The brief on Algeria rests mainly on object and purpose. The brief on Cameroon applies the Human Rights Committee test.
Advocates preparing submissions to the African Commission can build these arguments into shadow reports. RFLD’s manual on shadow reports under the Maputo Protocol explains how to structure such a submission.
About the report
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.
