Africa

The Parliament enacted this law as a response to a study ordered by government ministers that revealed that 69% of women in Benin had been the victim of some form of gender-based violence at least once in their lives. The law seeks to tackle and abolish all forms of violence against women and girls in the Republic of Benin. The law has a wide scope and adopts a very broad definition of violence that includes physical, sexual, moral, psychological, and economic violence, and any threats of such violence, both in the public and domestic domain.

Article 11 of this Act establishes that women have the same rights as men to access, own, use, and make decisions over land.

L’article 11 de la loi portant sur le régime foncier rural garantit aux femmes les mêmes droits d’accès, de propriété, d’usage et pouvoir décisionnel sur la terre que les hommes.

This law criminalizes female genital mutilation (“FGM”), except if surgery is required for medical reasons and carried out on the basis of medical prescriptions. An individual found guilty of performing FGM of any kind, or assisting in the performance of the mutilation, can face up to three years in prison and a fine of up to 3,000,000 francs. If the mutilation was carried out on a minor, the prison sentence is between three to five years.

The law states that sexual harassment occurs where anyone repeatedly gives, orders, or conveys a message, or makes threats, imposes constraints, exerts pressure, or uses any other means to obtain sexual favors for themselves or a third party from a person in a vulnerable or subordinate position, and against the will of the harassed person (Article 1). Vulnerability to harassment depends on age, social and economic status, physical or mental health, or any other factor which a judge may deem relevant (Article 3).

This law creates a right to access reproductive health services in Benin without discrimination.  The law ensures access to reproductive health care and makes it a fundamental human right. The law lists several violations of the right to sexual and reproductive health, including all forms of sexual violence against women and children, female genital mutilations, pedophilia, voluntary transmission of HIV, exploitation in all its forms, forced prostitution of women and children, and forced marriages.

A man in South Africa was convicted of raping his adopted daughter over the course of a sexually abusive relationship that lasted several years and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The judge overruled claims that the victim had given consent, holding that the victim’s lack of resistance did not qualify as active consent. Furthermore, the judge held that that the perpetrator had knowingly employed sexual grooming techniques to leverage the victim into sexual acts.

This case was brought by the complainant, who was attacked and raped by robbers at her home.  She immediately reported the matter to police and requested a medical practitioner to prescribe emergency contraception.  The medical practitioner said he required the presence of a police officer to do so.

The appellant, M.N., was charged with attempt to procure abortion, contrary to Section 158 of the penal code, which provides the “any person who, with intent to procure miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to her or causes her to take any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.” Four witnesses testified for the prosecution, including complainant, who was 15 years old, told the court that the appellant, who was her teach

Witnesses testified that Madame H.T. insulted her husband’s co-wife and mother in law. The Appeal Court granted divorce to Monsieur Y.K. on the sole basis that by insulting his mother his first wife had harmed his husband honor and dignity and made marital life impossible. However, quarrels between co-wives do not characterize a serious insult in a polygamous marriage. Moreover, by asking for divorce from the first wife only, the husband committed a serious injustice and violated his duty of impartiality with his wives.

The appellant was convicted of (i) aiding the commission of female genital mutilation (“FGM)” on several girls, (ii) failing to report the commission of FGM, and (iii) allowing her premises to be used to perform FGM.  She pled guilty to the crimes and was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 200,000 (or 3 years of imprisonment if she defaulted on the payment).  On appeal, she argued that the sentence was overly harsh and oppressive because she was a single mother of three children.  Justice M.