Before Ratification Rethinking CEVAWG’s Implementation Gaps

Before Ratification Rethinking CEVAWG’s Implementation Gaps

Originally published by REDRESS

Author: Mai Aman, Legal Officer at Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa

​On 31 July 2025, ISLA hosted an online conversation examining one of the most contentious aspects of the newly adopted African Union’s Convention on Ending Violence Against Women and Girls (CEVAWG): Article 14. This provision sets out the implementation and oversight framework for the Convention, placing primary responsibility in the hands of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

At first glance, this may seem logical. The ACHPR already oversees human rights instruments like the African Charter and the Maputo Protocol. However, experts in this online conversation highlighted that this designation risks entrenching long-standing institutional weaknesses rather than addressing them.

The discussion zeroed in on the Commission’s track record, particularly under Article 59(1) of the African Charter, which imposes sweeping confidentiality on its communications procedure. In practice, this has meant no public hearings, no published cause lists, restrictions on sharing pleadings, and months, or even years, long delays in releasing adopted decisions. For victims, this translates into invisibility; for civil society, it means exclusion from advocacy and follow-up.

The ACHPR’s own stance has been one of rigid literalism. Commissioners have repeatedly stated, “Our hands are tied by the Charter”, resisting calls to adopt a more progressive interpretation under Article 60 of the African Charter, which permits harmonisation with international human rights norms. Without reform, the body tasked with implementing CEVAWG could find itself unable to deliver on the Convention’s promises.

Experts also questioned the argument that ratification should proceed, and flaws can be fixed later. Lessons from the Maputo Protocol show that unresolved design flaws can persist for decades, undermining both State accountability and victims’ access to justice.. With only seven AU member States allowing individuals and NGOs direct access to the African Court under Article 34(6) of the African Court Protocol, judicial remedies under CEVAWG would remain inaccessible to most Africans.

The experts called for action to:

• Push for a progressive reinterpretation, or even severance, of Article 59(1) to ensure transparency and access to justice.
• Consider granting the African Court limited direct jurisdiction over CEVAWG cases.
• Pause the ratification campaign to allow for a full gap analysis and consultation with affected communities and feminist legal experts.
• Strengthen civil society coalitions to demand an implementation framework that is fit for purpose.

Ultimately, CEVAWG must be more than a symbolic victory. As one panellist put it, “It is not enough for a treaty to exist—it must be capable of delivering justice.” The rights of African women and girls demand nothing less.