Today is International women’s day dedicated to the advocacy of women’s rights globally. Even though I am not a woman, and do not pretend to speak for them because they are more capable of presenting their own issues from their lived experiences. But what I seek to do in this write-up on this day is to add a masculine voice to such an important issue women's sexual and reproductive rights.

This is to also drum home the point that, issues concerning women is a social justice matter which merits intervention from every member of the society. As rightly echoed by one of Africa’s renowned feminists, Naomi Nkealah that “the inclusion of men is necessary for the freedom of women.”

It is trite knowledge that about 7.7 billion of the world’s population came through women, which means that women at some point were impregnated by men, carried those foetuses for nine months in most cases until delivery. The world is yet to encounter a situation where an individual got pregnant for nine months and delivered through a vagina without being a woman.

Why these preliminary statements? The essence is to trumpet the sexual and reproductive rights of women as aforesaid. For a very long time in the Ghanaian society, we have heard stories of women and girls being sacked from school, work and the most recent one −the disengagement of two women as pupils undergoing one-year mandatory pupillage per the legal profession regulation for pregnancy-related issues.

The one which also received much attention from the media was two Ghana National Fire Service women who were a few years ago dismissed per the conditions of service of the Ghana national fire service(GNFS) for being pregnant within the first three years of employment. The case was subsequently brought before the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice(CHRAJ)−the national human rights institution of Ghana. Same was investigated by the CHRAJ.

Eventually, the matter ended up in the human rights court where it set out four test criteria for the determination of the matter. First, is the person or group of persons protected by the relevant law and non-discrimination? Second, has the person or group of persons protected been subjected to adverse treatment?

Third, whether any ground a factor in the adverse treatment? Fourth, is the adverse treatment reasonably justified? At the end of the proceedings, the decision taken by the GNFS could not stand the above quadruple test. In the landmark decision, the court decided in favour of the Commission and both women by ordering their reinstatement and compensation.

Indeed, the argument of the GNFS was that given the nature of the work and training, pregnant women were at risk hence the policy. This sounds like an institution acting in ‘good faith’ on one hand, while inadvertently seriously undermining women rights on the other hand.

The recent developments at the law firm as reported in the media, as already mentioned begs the question, why is society always punishing women for exercising their sexual and reproductive rights? Feminists have bemoaned how societies have always used the sexual and reproductive functions of women to deny them better educational and economic opportunities in life.

They further contend that it has been deployed to subjugate women to the point of becoming economically vulnerable thereby reducing them to the status of second class citizens. We cannot disagree with this proposition given the reality of many women in the society who have to manoeuvre the complex reality of getting pregnant and pursuing career simultaneously.

Put differently, women have to painfully strike a balance between fulfilling a natural obligation and attaining economic freedom. Nonetheless, one should also not be oblivious of the challenges of businesses especially small businesses in balancing the observation of human rights and making capitalist business decisions.

Whether we like it or not, businesses are profit-oriented in nature and therefore any situation which may undermine such a determination is dwarfed. A friend who works with a private security firm told me about the difficulty of having to pay a female staff while on maternity leave as a small business.

He further said that under such circumstance the best the company could do if they don’t have resources to pay her is to assure her of re-engagement upon return from maternal leave. Be as it may, their concerns seem legitimate from a business point of view but falls flat in the face of human rights.

It is common knowledge that the ultimate responsibility for the protection of human rights and women’s sexual and reproductive rights for that matter lies exclusively with the state. Put differently, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that the rights of women are respected and protected by all including businesses and institutions.

Fortunately, the 1992 constitution has through some provisions affirmed both horizontal (private persons) and vertical(state) accountability for human rights. In furtherance to that, the role businesses play today and implications for human rights had compelled the UN to introduce what has come to be known as ‘Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights’ which imposes three layers of obligation: to respect, protect and remedy.

Essentially, it means businesses to a very large extent have some form of human rights obligations. Given the legitimate concerns of businesses in balancing business decisions with upholding women’s rights, it behoves on the state to fashion out creatively how to assist institutions such as businesses to uphold women’s rights while making business decisions.

Because in terms of providing training or employment opportunities, the state cannot solely execute such mandate especially where we are being constantly reminded of a neoliberal maxim that “the private sector is the engine of growth”. Consequently, I hold the view that the state must assist institutions on how to skilfully blend upholding women’s rights with business decisions.

This could be realized by providing human rights advisory services, education and any other means through which women and businesses can flourish together. Businesses, in particular, should not forget that it is through women the next set of customers and employees will emanate from. This can only be possible if women are supported to pursue their dreams and at the same time exercising their sexual and reproductive rights which is exclusive to them.

As we mark international women’s day dubbed “…generation equality: realising women’s rights” it is, therefore, the moral duty of everyone to contribute to the realisation of gender equality which includes upholding women sexual and reproductive rights without discrimination or prohibition.

The writer is a Human Rights researcher and consultant.