The highly controversial Marriages Bill that protects men who have live-in-girlfriends was yesterday finally passed by the National Assembly following amendments made to the proposed law by Senate last month.

After the approval of the amendments by Senate last month, the Bill had to be returned to the National Assembly for it to consider the changes before it was sent to Emerson Mnangagwa for his assent.

The Bill was initially passed in the National Assembly in 2020 but was held up in Senate after traditional leaders objected to a clause that said that payment or non-payment of a bride price could not be regarded as a barrier in solemnising marriage between two consenting adults if they satisfied other requirements of the law.

But traditional leaders, led by Chiefs Council president Fortune Charumbira, argued that payment of bride price was a hallmark of marriage in customary unions.

There had been differences between the Government and traditional leaders on a clause related to lobola payment in customary unions and the powers of chiefs as marriage officers.

The new amendments allow marriage officers, who include traditional leaders solemnising customary unions in their own areas to ask parties to a marriage whether or not lobola has been paid.

The amendments also provide that a marriage officer in a customary union cannot solemnise unions where couples had stayed together for less than five years.

Under unregistered customary law unions, the amendments make it clear that a marriage officer to a proposed customary union can include questions about lobola among those required for establishing the identity and ages of the couple.

In these solemnisations of unregistered customary unions, the couples have to present an affidavit jointly sworn to by them to the effect that they have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years or more, and that they are not related to each other within any prohibited degree of kinship that is recognised by their community as an impediment to marriage between them.

There also have to be affidavits by two witnesses (of whom one witness must be a relative of the bridegroom and the other a relative of the bride) corroborating the fact that the proposed marriage partners have been living together as man and wife for five years or more and that they are not related to each other within the prescribed degree of kinship.

The period of five years referred to in this section shall not include any period during which either of the parties was below the age of eighteen years at the time that they purportedly began to live together as man and wife.

In 2020 Cabinet withdrew a clause in the Bill that provides for “civil partnership,” saying such a union was alien and not consistent with the country’s cultural and Christian values.

The new marriage law 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.

Commenting on the implications of the Clause, the late 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 marriage registered.

The then Attorney General 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 it as a civil partnership,” said Adv Machaya, back then. – State Media/Additional Reporting