By Sylvia Mesesi
At face value, this treaty appears to be an honorable effort to protect women and girls from violence. However, a closer look reveals that it is a Trojan horse, filled with provisions that threaten the sovereignty of African nations and undermine the deeply held cultural and religious values that form the foundation of African families.
Key Issues within the CEVAWG
The treaty presents several major concerns, particularly in how it redefines fundamental concepts, shifts interpretation authority to external bodies, and leaves room for dangerous reinterpretations of human rights.
The Redefinition of Family
The convention fails to uphold the traditional and biological reality of the family as the fundamental unit of society. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes the family as the natural and fundamental group unit that must be protected, this convention deliberately leaves the definition open-ended. By failing to define family as being rooted in the biological complementarity of male and female, it creates space for the redefinition of family structures in ways that contradict African cultural and religious values. Additionally, it mandates states to protect and strengthen so-called “human rights defenders,” many of whom have actively worked against pro-family policies.
A Broad and Unscientific Definition of Gender
Article 1(g) and (h) of the convention introduce a broad, undefined, and non-scientific definition of gender. This opens the door to ideological interpretations, including gender fluidity and transgender ideology, which are not rooted in objective science or African cultural realities. By failing to recognize the biological distinction between male and female, the treaty pushes an agenda that has already led to significant legal and social conflicts in Western nations.
Undefined and Politicized Human Rights
The convention places a heavy emphasis on “human rights” (Article 6) but fails to define what these human rights are. This creates a dangerous loophole where vague, undefined, and controversial rights, including fabricated rights related to sexual orientation, gender identity (SOGI), abortion, and comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) could be imposed on African nations. Without a clear and agreed-upon definition, any activist court or organization could manipulate the interpretation of “human rights” to push radical ideologies under the guise of legal obligations.
Problematic Interpretation Mechanisms
One of the most alarming aspects of the convention is that it places interpretation responsibility in the hands of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (Article 14(3)). This very same ACHPR has been previously used to reinterpret treaties such as the Maputo Protocol to advance controversial agendas, including the promotion of abortion and comprehensive sexuality education. Giving this body further authority over CEVAWG ensures that African nations will have little control over how the treaty is applied, allowing external pressures to dictate national policies.
What Happened in Addis Ababa?
Despite these glaring concerns, the convention was approved by the AU’s Executive Council and subsequently adopted by the Heads of State. The rapid approval process left little room for critical discussions on its implications. Now, the treaty is open for ratification, meaning African nations must decide whether to adopt it into their national legal frameworks.
What Can Be Done?
African nations still have an opportunity to stand against the dangerous elements of CEVAWG. Here’s how:
1. Reject Ratification
Governments should refuse to ratify the convention in its current form, recognizing that it undermines national sovereignty, cultural values, and the integrity of the family.
2. Introduce Strong Reservations
If ratification proceeds, countries must insist on ironclad reservations that uphold national laws, traditions, and religious values. These reservations should:
- Clearly define family as based on the biological reality of male and female.
- State that gender means only male and female, based on biological sex.
- Ensure that no provisions of the treaty create obligations related to sexual orientation, gender identity, abortion, or comprehensive sexuality education.
- Mandate that implementation fully respects national sovereignty, religious and cultural values, and national laws.
Conclusion
The AU’s CEVAWG Convention, while outwardly appearing to protect women and girls, contains hidden dangers that threaten Africa’s cultural, religious, and national foundations. If African nations are to safeguard their sovereignty and uphold the values that have held societies together for generations, they must refuse to ratify this treaty or, at the very least, demand strong reservations that protect the integrity of African families and national autonomy. The future of Africa’s cultural and moral landscape depends on it.
Sylvia Mesesi is CCI Policy Officer Africa