KAMPALA- The Law Development Centre (LDC) has rejected the proposal to impose a fine of UGX10M or jail sentence of 3 years for cohabiting couples in Uganda, arguing that criminalizing cohabitation would be impractical to implement, as this would require the establishment of jails at village level, given that majority of Ugandans are trapped in such relationships.
Leading the rejection was Paul Mukiibi, Head, Department of Law Reporting, Research and Law Reform at LDC while appearing before the Joint Committee of Legal & Gender during the consideration of the Marriage Bill, 2024, that was tabled by Totoro district woman MP Sarah Opendi.
His comments were in reaction to a proposal in clause 89 of the Marriage Bill where Opendi proposed a fine of UGX10M or jail sentence of 3years to be imposed on people holding out as though married, where she went further to explain that holding out under the Bill means living together as husband and wife, acquiring or owing property jointly, bearing children together, and taking on the man’s surname by the woman.
Nakaseke central MP Allan Mayanja wondered if restricting legally married people from indulging in cohabitation with other people would work. However, Mukiibi maintained his stance against criminalizing cohabitation arguing that the people involved in such relationships are consenting adults.
The LDC also rejected the proposal to change civil marriages from monogamous to potentially polygamous saying this would likely abuse the institution of monogamous marriages with Mukiibi.
The other proposal rejected by LDC was Clause 39(1)(a) that proposed avenues for conversion of monogamous marriage to a potentially polygamous marriage, which Mukiibi said could destabilize marital expectation because at the time people are entering marriage, they are aware of the various options, there is polygamy and there is monogamy.
The Law Development Centre however welcomed the proposal in clause 21, that allows Ugandan citizens to conduct marriages in Embassies, Missions, Consulates, describing such a proposal as a progressive legislative move that would reduce the burden of people having to come back to Uganda in order to carry out a marriage and later return to their resident nations.
The other proposal welcomed by the LDC was the flexibility of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, which would allow couples to set property and financial terms through agreements which offers flexibility and empowers spouses to clarify ownership and distribution, promoting open discussions and mutual understanding.
Another positive feature cited in Opendi’s Bill by the LDC was the proposal to decentralize marriage registration to district offices across the communities in Uganda, saying that the provision is good for access, leniency and also cost reduction and that will enhance access to marriages and also make our people not to be constrained financially.
There are however more problematic clauses cited by the LDC including Clause 51 and Clause 55 that impose an assumption of equal debt responsibility, where Mukiibi argued that such provisions assume mutual consent and equal knowledge in financial matters.
He also argued that the provision requiring both spousal consent before acquiring family debts lacks clarity on enforcement and doesn’t address implications for non-disclosure, which ambiguity may lead to financial abuse with economic dependent spouses who may potentially be exposed to unfair debt burdens.
The lack of clear property rights framework for polygamous unions, was also cited as one of the shortfalls in Opendi’s Bill with Mukiibi .
The Law Development Centre also wondered why Opendi wants to impose a restriction on use of surnames after marriage dissolution to only wives, arguing that such a move reinforces outdated gender norms and limits personal choice.
