A female lawyer’s view on proposed marriage reforms on cohabitation
Female lawyers have warned that the new proposed marriage reforms on cohabitation will not only cause a bad precedent but will also create more problems than solutions.
“I think that’s a very dangerous precedent, I do not agree with it as a lawyer, we might say we are protecting women but we might be very mistaken, people stay in relationships for different reasons, the law should be in the best interest of both women and men,” said Ms Pheona Wall, the former Law Society President.
The time limit on cohabitation is among a raft of proposals in a private members bill titled “The Marriage Bill, 2022” that is yet to be tabled by Tororo Woman MP Sarah Opendi.
Ms. Wall says such a proposal has both legal and social implications and also infringes on people’s private lives since it is plainly forcing them to get married even when there is no intent.
“Marriage is a legally recognised contract, there is an offer and acceptance. There are places where they will presume a marriage for the sake of the benefit in what you did that would show intent,” she argues.
According to Wall, marriage is a legally recognised contract, and advises that its international definition is highly benchmarked before it is passed.
“For cohabitation to become a marriage, there must be a couple of things that are more than just you staying together, so far courts have used their discretion to grant things like custody, and maintenance by inferring marriage from the behaviour of the parties. Leaving that definition to the courts discretion depending on how the people behaved is much safer than legislating it into being,” said Ms. Wall.
She insists that any law on marriage should be in the best interest of the married couple, both men and women, and not one gender, further adding that it should protect and not break human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
“We must be very careful with the laws that we come up with, yes, you might be trying to protect people who are cohabiting or force people to meet their obligations but we have to ensure that there is intent, we do not want to pass laws that are going to create legal burden on people who had no intention to meet those burden,” she added.
