OPINION

This opinion was first published in the New Vision on May 23, 2023

By John Michael Ikara

The proposal by the Tororo Woman Member of Parliament, Sarah Opendi, to the effect that couples that cohabit beyond six months could get legal coverage for automatic marriage deserves a rejoinder.

According to the proposal, Opendi and other lawmakers want to refine the Marriage Bill 2022 and introduce a clause that limits the cohabitation duration to six months.

After this period such a couple should be considered as legally married just like couples in other forms of marriage like traditional and church marriages.

Whereas it is understandable that the overall intent of the proposed amendment may be to afford protection and support to couples in informal unions, the potential negative implications of the proposed law are far reaching.

Some of the reasons why I consider the amendment to be more of harmful than beneficial are:

Violation of human rights

Marriage is a decision that requires voluntary and mutual consent of partners. Automatically according legal marriage status to cohabiting couples, the State will be interfering with privacy and freedom of families. It should have no role in compelling cohabiting partners to marry.

Negatively affects good cultural and religious values

The proposed law undermines the cultural and religious beliefs of communities. Marriage ceremonies and customs have deep-rooted cultural and religious significance. It will be a direct affront to the cultural and religious values if cohabitation is recognised as marriage.

Potential source of domestic violence

Imposing legal marriage on cohabiting couples may lead to domestic violence given that some of the cohabiting couples prefer informal unions to legitimate ones for one reason or another. On the contrary, an automatic transition to marriage after six months may instead precipitate the separation of the cohabiting families on account of unwillingness to be in a legally binding marriage.

Legal and financial complications

Marriage comes with legal and financial implications including the issues of property rights. To recognise cohabitation as a marriage without the voluntary mutual consent of the partners will bring about confusion in cohabiting families when it comes to the management of their individual private property.

Inadequate time for informed decisions

A six-month period is not sufficient for a cohabiting couple to be recognised as married because assessment of personal character is key and it takes relatively a long time.

Automatic transition into a legal marriage in six months’ time is unlikely to provide individuals with adequate appreciation of their partner’s weakness and strengths in order to make informed decisions on whether to formalise their unions or not.

My advice and appeal to MPs is to consider the far-reaching consequences of the proposed amendment and explore other alternative ways of protecting the interests of the cohabiting couples other than making their relationship conditional.

The writer is a Prisons officer and a national opinion leader ikarajohnmike@gmail.com