Re M and S: High Court makes FGM and forced marriage protection orders despite unenforceability in Nigeria

The High Court has made female genital mutilation protection orders (FGMPOs) and forced marriage protection orders (FMPOs) for two sisters facing removal to Nigeria. It accepted that the orders could not be enforced there, but held that they would still give meaningful protection.

In Re M and S (FGM and FM Protection Orders: Nigeria) [2026] EWHC 2865 (Fam), Ms Justice Harris approved the orders by consent, publishing her judgement as guidance on process. Publication is subject to a strict condition that the anonymity of the children and their family is preserved.

Background

The sisters, one an adult and one a teenager, had lived in England with their father since 2021. After the family's immigration applications were refused and return flights booked, the younger sister disclosed fears of FGM. The local authority applied for protection orders and interim FGMPOs were made.

The risk came from senior relatives in Nigeria, not from the father, who opposed the practices but accepted he could not protect his daughters there. The Home Office declined to intervene but agreed not to enforce removal pending the outcome. Fresh asylum claims remain undetermined.

A staged risk assessment

The court directed expert risk assessment in two stages, following the distinction in Re X (FGM Protection Order) (No 2) [2019] EWHC 1990 (Fam) between contextual "macro" factors and individual "micro" factors. Permission for the individualised stage was given only once the contextual report had been received and the risks of inquiries in Nigeria could be judged.

The court declined to allow any direct contact with family or community members in Nigeria. Although engaging with the alleged source of risk is usually preferable, the judge relied on Chief Constable and AA v YK [2010] EWHC 2438 (Fam), paragraph 339IA of the Immigration Rules and Home Office guidance warning that involving families can increase the danger. Further inquiry was unnecessary and disproportionate.

The judge welcomed consistent use of Home Office country information across the asylum and family systems. The individualised assessment put the younger sister at moderate to high risk of FGM and moderate risk of forced marriage, and the elder sister at moderate and low to moderate risk respectively.

Family and immigration jurisdictions

Applying Re A (FGM: Asylum) [2020] 1 FLR 253, the judge stressed that the family court cannot restrain the Home Secretary and neither jurisdiction binds the other. Distinguishing the approach in BA v JA [2018] EWHC 1754 (Fam), where Holman J declined to make orders while the risk depended on an asylum claim failing, she held that the purpose of an order turns on the facts. With delay causing the sisters real distress, the application should be decided now.

Orders without enforcement

Expert evidence on Nigerian law confirmed that orders made in England would not be recognised or enforced there and that no extradition route existed. FGM and forced marriage are criminal offences under state law, and local protective orders are available, but no reported convictions could be found.

The court applied the four-stage approach in Re K (Forced Marriage: Passport Order) [2020] EWCA Civ 190 and found the risks real and substantial. Most of the available protective measures depended on the family living away from relatives, which was not realistic. The orders would not disrupt the sisters' daily lives and could carry "soft force" abroad. The judge concluded that any step that might help secure their protection should be taken.

Referring to her earlier decision in AS v Waltham Forest LBC [2024] EWHC 2808 (Fam), the judge reiterated that such orders must be targeted and proportionate, and should ordinarily be time-limited or subject to review.