Anyone who has raised a reservation to the Maputo Protocol with a ministry will recognise the replies. The provision is against our religion. Our law is already better. It is a matter of sovereignty. It is only a declaration. RFLD’s report Lifting the Reservations: nine country briefs on the Maputo Protocol collects the most common objections and gives a short, sourced answer to each. Here they are, with some context.
“The provision is against our religion.”
The answer rests on regional practice. “At least eight States Parties with majority or significant Muslim populations apply the Protocol without reservations.” The African Commission’s Advocacy Framework names them: Djibouti, The Gambia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia. The toolkit adds that “The Gambia withdrew its reservations in 2006.”
The framework also asks States to engage critically with the claim that particular provisions contravene Islamic law, and to avoid cultural relativism. For the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which justifies its reservations on religious grounds, the brief adds a further point: some reserved provisions, such as those on law enforcement and development planning, raise no religious question at all.
“Our law already protects women better.”
“Then the reservation is unnecessary. Article 31 of the Protocol preserves more favourable national law.” The Advocacy Framework describes such reservations as “superfluous”. This answer applies most clearly to South Africa, whose reservations aim to keep its own law more favourable to women. Its brief concludes that withdrawal “would cost nothing”.
“Our domestic law is different.”
“A State may not invoke its internal law to justify failure to perform a treaty. Ratification was a promise to bring the law in line.” This reflects Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is relevant to Kenya and Mauritius, which tie some reservations to domestic legislation. In Kenya’s case the brief adds that the Constitution itself permits abortion on grounds close to those of Article 14(2)(c), so the reservation “protects a narrower position than the Constitution itself”.
“This is a matter of national sovereignty.”
“The State exercised its sovereignty when it ratified. Withdrawal is also a sovereign act, done by a simple notification.” Under the Vienna Convention, a reservation may be withdrawn at any time without the consent of other States Parties. The decision stays with the State from start to finish. The report’s model notification shows how short such an act can be: a single paragraph from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Chairperson of the African Union Commission.
“It is only a declaration.”
“A declaration that excludes or modifies the legal effect of a provision operates as a reservation.” The Advocacy Framework applies the test of the UN Human Rights Committee, which looks at the effect of a statement, whatever its name. This answer is relevant to Cameroon’s general declaration, which the brief finds “creates uncertainty about how Cameroon applies Article 14(2)(c)”. It also applies to the interpretive declarations of Ethiopia and South Africa.
“Nobody asks us to withdraw.”
“The African Commission adopted Resolution 632 in 2025 and the Advocacy Framework in 2026 for that purpose.” The Commission has also asked individual States directly. In 2016 it asked South Africa to “lift all reservations under the Maputo Protocol”. More recently, it asked Kenya in 2022 and Uganda in March 2024 to withdraw or consider lifting their reservations on Article 14.
Why short answers help
Advocates often have a few minutes with an official or a parliamentarian. A short answer grounded in law and practice is more useful than a long legal argument. Each of the toolkit’s answers can be traced to a source: the Vienna Convention, Article 31 of the Protocol, the Advocacy Framework or the Commission’s own concluding observations.
The answers also share a tone. They acknowledge the State’s commitment to the Protocol and treat withdrawal as a sign of political willingness, as the Advocacy Framework does. The report’s model letter to a minister follows the same approach, opening with a welcome for the State’s ratification before raising the reservation.
For the country-specific version of these arguments, see the nine briefs presented in the report summary.
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.
