When a State ratifies the Maputo Protocol, it can limit its obligations through reservations or interpretive declarations. Those limits often touch the most contested rights, such as marriage and reproductive health. RFLD’s manual, Reporting on the Maputo Protocol: a manual for shadow reports, shows how shadow reports can keep reservations on the agenda at every State review.
Nine States, many provisions
According to the African Commission’s 2026 Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations, nine States hold reservations or declarations on the Protocol:
- Algeria: Articles 6, 7 and 14
- Cameroon: a general interpretive declaration
- Ethiopia: Articles 6(c), (d) and (f), 7(a), 10(3), 21(1) and 27
- Kenya: Articles 10(3) and 14(2)(c)
- Mauritius: Articles 4(2)(k), 6(c), 9, 10(2)(d), 11(3), 12(2) and 14(2)(c)
- Namibia: Article 6(d)
- Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic: Articles 2(c), 6(a) to (c) and (e), 7(b) and (d), 8(d) and (e), 14(1)(a) and (b), 19(a) and 21
- South Africa: Articles 4(j), 6(d) and 6(h)
- Uganda: Articles 14(1)(a) and 14(2)(c)
Several patterns stand out. Article 6, on marriage, and Article 14, on health and reproductive rights, are the most frequently reserved. Article 14(2)(c), which deals with safe abortion in specified circumstances, appears in several reservations.
The Commission is pushing for withdrawal
The African Commission has made the withdrawal of reservations a priority. On 11 March 2025, it adopted Resolution 632 on raising awareness for States to withdraw reservations to the Maputo Protocol. At its 86th Session, held from 23 February to 9 March 2026, it adopted the Advocacy Framework for Withdrawing Reservations, published in May 2026.
The Framework gives civil society a clear role. It recommends that civil society organisations run advocacy campaigns, carry out impact studies, engage the ministries concerned and work across borders.
It also reproduces concluding observations in which the Commission urged Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Namibia to reconsider their reservations. The Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa held a regional consultation on withdrawing reservations on 25 November 2025.
Why shadow reports matter here
Each State review is a chance to ask about reservations. The manual makes a practical point: even when a State presents only a Charter report, the review is an opening to raise the Protocol. Mauritius, whose 11th Charter report was scheduled for review at the 89th Session in Dakar, holds reservations to seven provisions. A shadow report on Mauritius can still ask the Commission to raise them.
Cameroon, also on the agenda in Dakar with its first to third Maputo reports, has made a general interpretive declaration. The manual uses these two States in an exercise. Learners draft one suggested question and one SMART recommendation on Cameroon’s declaration, and the same for Mauritius’s reservation to Article 14(2)(c).
Writing about reservations
A strong shadow report section on reservations combines legal and practical evidence. It identifies the exact provision reserved and the reason the State gave, if any. It then shows what the reservation means for women in practice, using national law and data. For example, a reservation on marriage provisions can be linked to evidence on the age of marriage or on property rights after divorce.
The section ends with questions and recommendations. A question might ask what steps the State has taken since Resolution 632 to review its reservations. A recommendation might ask the State to complete a review of a named reservation and report on the outcome in its next periodic report. The manual encourages using the Commission’s own formulas, such as calls to “reconsider” reservations.
Linking to General Comments
The Commission’s General Comments help show why a reservation matters. General Comment No. 2, adopted in 2014, interprets Article 14(1)(a), (b), (c) and (f) and Article 14(2)(a) and (c). General Comment No. 6, adopted in 2020, interprets Article 7(d) on women’s property rights when a marriage ends. Citing them shows Commissioners that the reserved provisions have an authoritative interpretation that the State is resisting.
Working across borders
The Framework’s call for cross-border work fits RFLD’s network well. Women’s organisations in a reserving State can learn from States that have never entered reservations on the same provisions. Regional coalitions can raise reservations at each session, keeping the issue visible even when the reserving State is not under review.
A long-term effort
Withdrawing a reservation usually takes years of advocacy with ministries and parliament. Shadow reports provide regular moments of accountability. Each review adds a new set of concluding observations, and each one can repeat the call.
RFLD has published detailed country briefs on this issue. They set out each State’s position and the arguments for withdrawal. Read them in RFLD’s country briefs on lifting the reservations.
About the report
This article draws on RFLD’s report Reporting on the Maputo Protocol: a manual for shadow reports, published on 4 October 2026. Read the summary, download the English edition or the French edition.
