By KT Reporter
The Law Development Centre (LDC) has voiced strong objections to several provisions in the proposed Marriage Bill, 2024, describing them as impractical and detrimental to societal norms.
While appearing before the Joint Committee on Legal and Gender Affairs, Paul Mukiibi, Head of the Department of Law Reporting, Research, and Law Reform at LDC, highlighted key problematic areas, particularly the criminalization of cohabitation, changes to marital structures, and limitations on DNA testing.
Rejection of Criminalizing Cohabitation
LDC opposed the proposal to impose a UGX 10 million fine or a three-year jail sentence on cohabiting couples, as outlined in Clause 89 of the Bill. Mukiibi argued that such a provision would be unenforceable and place an unnecessary financial burden on the justice system.
“This is worrying in this age and era. We are fighting for the rights of cohabitants, yet criminalizing cohabitation disregards the reality that the majority of Ugandans are cohabiting. Enforcing this would require building jails at the village level,” Mukiibi stated.
Mukiibi further noted that in some jurisdictions, cohabitation for a specific period presumes a legal marriage, while in Uganda, cohabitants lack legal protection, disproportionately affecting women. He emphasized that legislation should address the realities on the ground rather than impose impractical penalties.
Allan Mayanja (Nakaseke Central) proposed that criminalization could target legally married individuals who engage in cohabitation outside their marriages. However, Mukiibi maintained that criminalization would not resolve the issue but could instead lead to increased domestic violence.
Concerns About Changes to Marital Structures
The LDC also opposed provisions in Clause 39(1)(a), which would allow the conversion of monogamous marriages into potentially polygamous ones. Mukiibi warned that this could destabilize marital expectations and lead to feelings of betrayal among spouses.
“When people enter marriage, they choose between monogamy and polygamy. Allowing one partner to unilaterally convert a monogamous marriage to polygamous undermines trust. Clear safeguards would be needed to address this,” he said.
Additionally, LDC rejected proposals to redefine civil marriages as potentially polygamous, arguing that this would erode the institution of monogamous marriages.
Support for Progressive Proposals
Despite its objections, the LDC endorsed several provisions in the Bill, including the proposal in Clause 21 to allow Ugandans to conduct marriages in embassies, missions, and consulates. Mukiibi described this as a progressive move that would reduce logistical burdens for couples living abroad.
LDC also supported provisions for prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, stating that they would promote clarity in property ownership and reduce court disputes. Mukiibi noted that such agreements align with recent judicial recommendations and provide couples with greater flexibility.
The decentralization of marriage registration to district offices was another proposal lauded by the LDC. This, Mukiibi explained, would improve access, reduce costs, and ease the registration process for couples in rural areas.
Objections to Debt and Property Clauses
LDC raised concerns about Clause 51 and Clause 55, which propose an equal assumption of debt responsibility among spouses. Mukiibi warned that this could place economically vulnerable spouses, particularly women, at a disadvantage.
“Men often incur debts without their spouses’ consent, and requiring equal liability could lead to undue financial burdens on women,” he explained.
Mukiibi also criticized the lack of a clear framework for property distribution in polygamous marriages, arguing that this could lead to increased legal disputes.
Limitation on DNA Testing
The LDC opposed Clause 44, which restricts DNA testing to cases authorized by court orders. Mukiibi argued that this provision would make the process financially and logistically inaccessible to ordinary Ugandans seeking to establish parenthood.
“Restricting DNA testing to court orders complicates matters unnecessarily. In some jurisdictions, compulsory DNA testing at birth is being considered. This Bill’s approach adds costs and delays for families,” Mukiibi stated.
Gender-Based Name Restrictions
The LDC criticized the proposal to restrict the use of surnames after marriage dissolution to wives, describing it as reinforcing outdated gender norms.
“People should have the freedom to decide whether to retain or drop their surnames after divorce. Such a restriction is unnecessary and limits personal choice,” Mukiibi noted.
The LDC’s submissions highlight a need for the Marriage Bill to balance progressive reforms with practical and inclusive legislation that addresses Uganda’s socio-economic realities-Parliament Watch. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
