Post a comment 
Prominent lawyer and activist Basita Michael has weighed in on the controversy surrounding First Lady Fatima Maada Bio, offering a nuanced perspective on the recent cancellation of the First Lady’s international speaking engagement.
Michael made it clear that she does not act in defence of the First Lady, reiterating her firm and uncompromising opposition to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). She stressed that the practice carries severe physical, psychological, and human rights consequences that must not be trivialised or justified under cultural or political pretexts.
However, she argued that the decision by an organisation to cancel the First Lady’s speech solely based on her perceived stance on FGM should be examined within a broader global framework.
According to Michael, the international community has repeatedly extended platforms, honours, and legitimacy to leaders and officials linked to far more serious violations, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and significant democratic abuses.
She further pointed to what she described as a pattern of inconsistency, noting that public officials from Sierra Leone have often travelled abroad to deliver speeches promoting democracy, accountability, and the rule of law, while those same principles are undermined domestically through actions, silence, or institutional weaknesses.
Michael also referenced growing public concern over the handling of the drug crisis, which continues to devastate communities and cause widespread human suffering. Despite these concerns, she observed, some officials continue to be granted international platforms from which they advocate for good governance.
“The inconsistency is difficult to ignore,” she noted, suggesting that the First Lady may have simply found herself subjected to scrutiny that more powerful global actors frequently evade.
Michael emphasised that criticism of FGM remains valid and necessary, and that public figures must always be held accountable for their positions on harmful practices. Nonetheless, she maintained that the deeper issue lies in what she described as the selective and uneven application of moral outrage in international spaces.
In her view, while some individuals are isolated and condemned, others often implicated in more severe conduct, continue to receive legitimacy, prestige, and public acclaim without consequence.
