By Mulengera Reporters
Tororo District Woman MP Sarah Opendi has passionately defended the Marriage Bill, despite the backlash surrounding several of its controversial provisions.
Appearing before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Legal and Gender Affairs on Tuesday 19th November 2024, Opendi urged MPs to critically examine the bill’s proposals to protect what she described as the “sanctity of marriage” in Uganda. One of the bill’s most contested points is a provision requiring couples to seek parental consent before marriage.
While this proposal, introduced by the Interreligious Council, has faced opposition from civil society groups, Opendi argued that parental involvement is vital in marriage decisions, even if young adults are legally entitled to marry at 18 without such consent.
“I know some oppose the idea of parental consent, saying an 18-year-old is an adult who should marry whomever they wish without interference. However, I believe parental blessings are important in marriage,” Opendi told the committee.
The bill also proposes a shift in civil marriage laws to allow polygamous unions, a provision aimed at accommodating religions that permit polygamy. Opendi argued that civil marriages, being state-governed and not tied to a specific religion, should be flexible enough to include this option.
“Civil marriages have traditionally been monogamous, but we’re proposing a change to reflect the diverse beliefs in Uganda, including those accepting polygamy,” Opendi explained.
However, some MPs pushed back against this proposal. Joy Peggy Waako, representing Older Persons, warned it could drive men away from church marriages in favor of civil unions where polygamy is permitted. She expressed concerns over the potential implications for daughters who might face uncertain marital conditions under polygamous arrangements.
Additional provisions in the bill, such as the 21-day notice requirement for civil marriages, drew mixed responses. John Teira, MP for Bugabula North, suggested that the waiting period could be shortened, arguing that excessive legal formalities could hinder marriages, especially under a polygamous framework.
Teira also raised questions about how the polygamous provision would affect civil marriages that were established before the bill’s enactment. He advocated for clear transitional provisions to address existing unions.
Marital rape, a heavily debated topic in earlier discussions, was intentionally left out of the bill by Opendi, who described it as a “gray area” difficult to prove legally. Similarly, a proposal to recognize long-term cohabitation as marriage was excluded, though the bill does seek to protect the rights of children and cohabiting couples.
Erute South MP Jonathan Odur questioned why the bill, which should focus on marriage and its dissolution, includes clauses related to property and children’s rights. He also criticized clauses that could penalize people for breaking engagement promises, suggesting this approach was overly rigid.
Odur further questioned the removal of traditional grounds for divorce, such as adultery and cruelty, which the bill replaces with a general standard of “irretrievable breakdown.” He argued that the bill should include measures to penalize individuals who deliberately interfere in others’ marriages.
The debate over the Marriage Bill highlights deep divisions within Parliament about how to reconcile Uganda’s diverse religious and cultural values with individual rights and legal protections in marriage–Parliament Watch.(For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at [email protected]).
