Public Health and the Future of Global Prosperity

Dr. Costly Aderibigbe-Saba is a trained medical doctor and public health expert whose work sits at the intersection of science, systems leadership, and global health governance. She currently serves as the Executive Secretary of the Global Youth Consortium Against FGM, a global structure operating within the UNFPA–UNICEF Joint Programme on the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation, the world’s largest coordinated initiative dedicated to ending the practice. In this interview, she reflected on her journey, her leadership philosophy, and how science continues to guide her work on female genital mutilation and broader reproductive health challenges worldwide. Ayodeji Ake brings excerpts:

You trained as a medical doctor before moving fully into public health leadership. How did that journey begin?

My journey into medicine was rooted in a desire to understand health at its most fundamental level, how the human body responds to risk, care, and systems of support or neglect. I was interested not only in disease, but in why certain populations experience preventable harm repeatedly across generations. Clinical training gave me a deep appreciation for individual health outcomes, but it also exposed me to a recurring pattern. Many of the conditions I was treating were preventable. They were shaped long before a patient ever arrived in a clinic.
That realization led me to public health. I wanted to work upstream, where data, policy, and systems design can prevent harm at scale. Medicine taught me precision and accountability. Public health taught me reach and sustainability. Today, I practice both, just at different levels of the health ecosystem.

Female genital mutilation is a central focus of your work. What drew you to this issue from a scientific standpoint?

Female genital mutilation is often discussed in emotional or cultural terms, but at its core, it is a public health issue with well-documented clinical, obstetric, and lifelong health consequences. The evidence base spans epidemiology, obstetrics, mental health, and health systems research, and it consistently shows both immediate and long-term harm. From hemorrhage and infection to childbirth complications and long-term reproductive morbidity, the data are unequivocal.
What drew me in was the gap between evidence and action. We have decades of epidemiological data, yet prevalence remains high in specific regions. That gap is not due to a lack of knowledge, but to weak systems, fragmented coordination, and interventions that are not designed for population-level change. My work focuses on closing that gap using science, not sentiment.

As Executive Secretary of a global UN-backed consortium, what does your role entail in practical terms?

The role is fundamentally about coordination and strategy, but also about stewardship. Operating within a UNFPA and UNICEF joint framework requires discipline, neutrality, and adherence to evidence-based global standards. The Global Youth Consortium Against FGM is a worldwide mechanism that brings together youth-led organizations, front-line responders, and technical actors across multiple countries. My responsibility is to ensure that this network functions as a coherent system rather than isolated efforts.

That means setting strategic priorities aligned with UNFPA and UNICEF mandates, ensuring evidence informs programming, strengthening accountability frameworks, and representing the Consortium in high-level global spaces. Every decision we make must be defensible through data, aligned with international standards, and capable of producing measurable outcomes.

How do you ensure that your decisions remain data-led at such a global scale?

Data is not an accessory to leadership. It is the foundation. In global public health, credibility depends on the ability to demonstrate impact through verifiable indicators rather than anecdote or rhetoric. Whether we are assessing prevalence trends, evaluating intervention impact, or identifying high-risk populations, we rely on surveillance data, programmatic evidence, and peer-reviewed research.
I approach leadership the same way I approach clinical decision-making. What does the evidence say. What variables influence outcomes. What systems must be strengthened to sustain results. This discipline allows us to move beyond symbolic commitments to interventions that can actually reduce prevalence across generations.

You manage multiple responsibilities across global advocacy, organizational leadership, and health innovation. How do you balance these roles?

Balance comes from integration, not separation. I do not view my roles as competing responsibilities, but as complementary layers of the same mission to strengthen health systems and outcomes. Each role informs the other. My clinical background sharpens my public health strategy. My public health work informs my leadership decisions. My exposure to global systems highlights gaps that innovation can address.
I am intentional about governance structures, delegation, and performance metrics. Strong systems allow leaders to operate at scale without compromising quality. Ultimately, leadership is not about doing everything yourself. It is about building structures that perform consistently, even in your absence.

Beyond female genital mutilation, how do you view the future of reproductive health globally?

Reproductive health must be treated as a systems issue, not a standalone sector. Outcomes are shaped by education systems, legal frameworks, financing mechanisms, and the availability of trained health professionals.
The future lies in integrated, technology-enabled, evidence-driven models that respond to real population needs. My focus is on ensuring that reproductive health interventions are not only accessible, but scientifically sound, culturally responsive, and embedded within national and global health systems.

How do you approach your work on female genital mutilation, and what has enabled some of your models to be adopted beyond their original contexts?

My approach to female genital mutilation is grounded in public health science and implemented through a deliberate three pronged framework. First, we prioritize robust data and evidence to understand prevalence, risk patterns, and impact at population level. Second, we design systems and policies that translate this evidence into coordinated action across health, education, protection, and justice sectors. Third, we invest in community-based structures that are locally credible and capable of sustaining change over time.

Several elements of this approach have been adapted across different countries because they are not context-dependent interventions. They are systems-driven models that can be localized without losing scientific integrity. Increasingly, we are also integrating science and technology led solutions, including data platforms, digital coordination tools, and technology-enabled service delivery, alongside unconventional community-led strategies that address deeply rooted social norms.

Our objective is clear. To accelerate the full elimination of female genital mutilation before 2030 by combining rigorous science, technological innovation, and grounded community engagement in a way that is measurable, scalable, and durable.

Why is reproductive health work, particularly efforts to end female genital mutilation, so critical to national and global prosperity?

Reproductive health is foundational to development. It shapes educational attainment, labor force participation, health system resilience, and long-term economic productivity. When girls and women experience preventable harm, the costs are not only individual, they are borne by families, communities, and national economies for decades.

Every measurable gain in reproductive health translates into broader societal returns. Reduced maternal and neonatal complications strengthen health systems. Girls who remain healthy stay in school longer and participate more fully in economic life. Communities that move away from harmful practices experience improved social cohesion and intergenerational stability.

Ending female genital mutilation is therefore not only a health imperative, but a development strategy. Each achievement moves countries closer to inclusive growth, human capital development, and global competitiveness. At a global level, these gains compound, expanding opportunity, reducing inequality, and creating the conditions for sustainable prosperity across regions.

Finally, how would you define your leadership philosophy?

I lead with evidence, clarity, and accountability. Leadership in public health requires restraint as much as decisiveness, knowing when to act quickly and when to allow systems to mature.

My responsibility is to ensure that the work we do today measurably improves health outcomes tomorrow, not just for individuals, but for populations. Public health leadership, at its highest level, is about stewardship. Stewardship of data. Stewardship of trust. Stewardship of systems that must outlive any single leader.