Cabinet has withdrawn a clause in the Marriages Amendment
Bill that provided for “civil partnership” saying such a union was alien and
not consistent with the country’s cultural and Christian values.
The proposed new marriage law has courted controversy, with
various interpretations of it and questions as to whether it would not
undermine the family unit and traditional marriage institution.
It was also construed that the new law would empower “small
houses”, a colloquial term for extra-marital or unrecognised unions. The matter came into sharp focus yesterday in Cabinet.
“Cabinet members sought clarification from the Minister of
Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs on the import of Section 40 of the
Marriages Amendment Bill currently before Parliament,” Information, Publicity
and Broadcasting Services Minister Monica Mutsvangwa said while addressing
journalists on the 27th Cabinet Decision Matrix.
“Following the explanation by the Minister, Cabinet
observed that the concept of a ‘civil union’ or ‘partnership’ is foreign and
not consistent with Zimbabwe’s cultural norms as well as its Christian values.
Accordingly, Cabinet directed that Section 40, which bears reference to ‘Civil
Partnerships’ be removed forthwith from the proposed Marriages Amendment Bill,”
said Minister Mutsvangwa.
Section 40 of Marriages Amendment Bill provided as follows:
“A relationship between a man and a woman who—(a) are both over the age of
eighteen years; and (b) have lived together without legally being married to
each other; and (c) are not within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity as
provided in section 7; and (d) having regard to all the circumstances of their
relationship, have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine
domestic basis;
shall be regarded as being in a civil partnership for the
purposes of determining the rights and obligations of the parties on
dissolution of the relationship and, for this purpose, sections 7 to 11 of the
Matrimonial Causes Act [Chapter 5:13] shall mutatis mutandis apply on the
dissolution of any such relationship.”
The withdrawal of the clause means Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi who is expected to steer the
Bill in Parliament will now propose the deletion of the contentious provision
at Committee stage.
Commenting on the implications of the clause, Foreign
Affairs and International Trade Minister Dr Sibusiso Moyo said Cabinet resolved
that it should not be seen as if it was condoning illegal activities.
“People who decide to have a commercial contractual
arrangement which will be determined other than the laws of contract will be
judged along those lines. I do not think it should be brought into the
Marriages Act.
“Secondly, Cabinet in its wisdom resolved that we must
remain principled and in line so that we will not necessarily encourage illegal
activities to take place by appearing as if we are legislating them,” said
Minister Moyo.
He said the removal of the clause would not affect rural
communities where couples had lived together as husband and wife for several
years without having their marriages registered.
Attorney General Advocate Prince Machaya said when two
people decide to live together outside the law and expectation of society they
should not expect protection from authorities because they did not accrue
additional rights such as legitimately married persons.
He said it was only people who were legally married whose
status at law should change and could enforce against each other upon
dissolution of such union.
“There is nothing that the authorities or the State can do
to protect them from what I can term the deliberateness of their own actions,
they are aware of what they are doing and what those type of relationships are
viewed by society, so people should not cry foul that they are not being
protected,” said Adv Machaya.
He said the clause was being misunderstood and
misinterpreted to create the impression that the law was recognising civil
unions.
“It is not a recognised marriage, it was merely out of
consideration of fairness that when these people move apart the one who is more
economically empowered should not use that power to the detriment of another
part, that was the sole purpose of referring to it as a civil partnership,”
said Adv Machaya. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment