‘Marriage Bill needs to go back to Parliament’
People’s Party (PP) Leader in Parliament, ULADI MUSSA (Salima South), made attempts to stop debate leading to the passage of the controversial Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations Bill. He explains his views to our reporter BONIFACE PHIRI.
Q
Why were you against the Bill?
A
I neither trashed nor refused the Bill but I wanted it refined so that it doesn’t have loopholes that would make it susceptible to legal challenges. I wanted it to go through the Legal Affairs Committee [a process it skipped] before being presented in Parliament for some grey areas to be ironed out.
Q
Do you think the Bill won’t stop child marriages?
A
I feel early marriages cannot end unless we amend Section 22(7) of the Constitution [which allows persons between the age of 15 and 18 years to marry with parental or guardians’ consent]. This, in essence, means even after the passing of the Bill, people will still marry young girls after parental consent. My proposal was to amend both the Bill and the Constitution to say nobody would marry before the age of 18, otherwise this is a non-starter.
Q
You also said the Marriage Bill is intruding upon the religious marriage. Could you please elaborate?
A
There are three types of marriages stipulated in this Bill and, of course, the Republican Constitution, namely; civil, customary and religious. What I am against is for people who got married in church or mosque to go to court when they choose to divorce. My argument is that religious marriages should seek views of and follow teachings of their religion when divorcing; Muslims have to consult the Qur’an and Christians, the Bible. Now, there are some denominations like Catholics who don’t recognise divorce and by default rendering the Act invalid according to their doctrine. My question is; why should people involve the church at the beginning of their marriage and bypass it when ending their union?
Q
Without a legal mandate to end marriages, how would religious bodies deal with divorce and issues surrounding child custody?
A
Religious bodies cannot fail to solve issues that were initiated by them and God is not a failure. As for child custody, it’s the responsibility of both parents to take care of children once a divorce has been agreed upon. So, divorce or child custody issues are non-issues where God is concerned.
Q
Are there any positives in the Bill?
A
Yes, there are. One of them is that it is seeking to reduce incidences of child marriages and, as a father myself, I find this aspect positive, only that the manner in which it’s been presented is wrong.
Q
What did you mean when you said the Bill is fighting other provisions of the constitution and that it’s susceptible to legal challenges?
A
An Act cannot be more powerful than the Republican Constitution, but what we are seeing here is that this Bill is repealing other Acts which regulate similar aspects and this is quite abnormal. Section 114 of the Bill is repealing the Divorce, Marriage and Asiatic Marriage Act. Now, I understand that Malawians of Asian origin were not consulted when coming up with this piece of legislation while natural justice entails that everyone should be consulted when coming up with something that’s likely to affect their way of life in one way or the other. The Bill is propagating issues of discrimination and bringing elements of disunity and these people may challenge implementation of the Bill in the court of law.
Q
How sure are you that Malawians of Asian origin were not consulted?
A
That’s for sure. Because most of those people, especially Hindus, marry their cousins and this Act is nullifying such a practice. I see a potential of the Bill being challenged, not only by the Asians but also anyone who feels discriminated against.
Q
What should be the way forward now?
A
It’s not too late. Let the government swallow its pride and take the Bill back to the Legal Affairs Committee to iron out the grey areas.
