The National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has called for patience in the harmonisation of the country’s marriage laws after claims emerged that there were calls to increase the consent age to 21.
The Marriage Bill seeks to bring the country’s separate marriage laws in line with several rulings of the Constitutional Court obtained by progressive non-governmental organisations.
It lays bare requirements for monogamous and polygamous marriages, designation of marriage officers, solemnisation and registration of marriages as well as the proprietary consequences and the dissolution of marriages, and provides for offences and penalties arising from not abiding with the proposed law, once it is promulgated.
However, this week it emerged that during the public hearings in the Eastern Cape, concerns were raised that the consent age of 18 could be inappropriate as it is the period teenagers may be still at school.
IOL reported that some Eastern Cape residents argued that 18 was still too young to get married as most youths this age were still at school and proposed an increase to 21.
The Bill states that any person who enters into a marriage with a person who is not at least 18 years of age, or any person, other than a child, who participates knowingly in such a marriage, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
The same will apply to monogamous marriages and even in polygamous marriages, parties entering into such regimes, should the law be passed (prospective spouses), must both be 18 or older on the date of entering into a marriage, give consent to enter into a marriage, and must be of sound mind.
Musa Chabane, chairperson of the portfolio committee, which is currently conducting public hearings across several provinces to harmonise South Africa’s marriage, said the hearings have not been concluded and that the committee has not deliberated.
"We still need to conduct public hearings in five provinces," he said.
Other opponents of the Bill such as the For Faith and Freedom complain that its certain aspects are problematic and must be improved, including criminalising civil marriage officers and religious leaders, and forcing them to comply with the white paper on marriage, the Constitution, and international law.
The organisation has also expressed reservations with civil marriage officers, which include Department of Home Affairs employees and magistrates being forced to solemnise all marriages, which it insisted violated their freedom of religion.
The proposed statute also makes provision to separate the solemnisation (religious and/or ceremonial) and formalisation (legal and/or administrative) aspects of marriage. In addition, it limits the involvement of civil marriage officers to formalisation, which should be neutral, to protect their religious freedom and ensure equal and fair marriage service delivery by the state.
For Faith and Freedom believes this inadvertently criminalises religious leaders, who are not marriage officers, but do so with the full knowledge and consent of the couple, and perform only the ceremonial (religious) aspects of marriage and not the legal aspect.
The organisation has called for improvement in the wording of the Bill to avoid unintentional criminalisation.