Over the weekend, I sighted a viral video whereby some customary rites had been being carried out for one younger woman alleged to be 12 years previous.
The essence of the customary rites was to “engage” this younger woman to the Gborbu Wulomo of Nungua. As a authorized practitioner, I intend to share my views on this because it raises a lot of authorized issues.
The first query we have now to reply is; had been the customary rites carried out pursuant to a customary marriage or a betrothal? Admittedly, whether or not or not the customary rites had been for customary marriage or betrothal could have an effect on the result of my opinion on the matter in the end.
The regulation on youngsters’s proper
In Ghana, little one for the needs of this opinion is an individual under the age of 18 years and that is constitutionally and statutorily acknowledged by Article 28(5) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 1 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560).
Article 28 of the 1992 Constitution typically seeks to guard the rights of youngsters, as such Parliament has a constitutional mandate to enact legal guidelines to guard the rights of youngsters. It is pursuant to this constitutional mandate underneath Article 28(1) of the 1992 Constitution that Parliament has enacted the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560).
The welfare precept as codified in part 2 of Act 560 states emphatically clear that in all dealings involving a baby, the most effective curiosity of the kid ought to take paramountcy. Nothing ought to be carried out to prejudice the most effective curiosity and rights of the kid. In the case of JOSEPHINE SOKROE OF TARKWA (SUING AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HAYFORD WOGBE) V ANTHONY KOFI ASSMAH, the High Court Coram: His Lordship Justice Robin B. Batu defined the welfare precept as follows;
“Neither the Constitution nor Act 560 or 653 define the welfare principle or what constitutes the best interest of the child. I will surmise that what constitutes the best interest of the child would comprise of everything that inures to the welfare of the child including the unhindered enjoyment of all the rights guaranteed to a child under Article 28 of the constitution and particularly the enjoyment of the rights which Section 6 (2) of Act 560 imposes on parents as a duty to provide for the child –the right to Life, Dignity, Respect, Leisure, Liberty, Health, Education and Shelter.”
In figuring out the welfare of the kid, the Court of Appeal in Suit No. H1/63/2017 and titled MICHAEL KYEI BAFFOUR V GLORIA CARLIS ANAMAN outlined some elements to be thought of as follows;
“The key merchandise of willpower right here, subsequently, is what would the welfare or better of curiosity of the kid be? In an try and decipher the ‘best interest or welfare’ of a kid or a difficulty, with regard to the information of this case, the next have to be thought of:
- a) The age of the kid; and
- b) The want for continuity within the care and management of the kid.,
- c) As properly as another matter which can be of relevance”
Therefore, with respect to this matter at hand, in all dealings we should always prioritize the welfare of the 12-year-old woman.
Can the 12-year-old marry or be betrothed?
Section 14 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) which is headed “Right to refuse betrothal and marriage”. The provision reads;
(1) An individual shall not drive a baby
(a) to be betrothed,
(b) to be the topic of a dowry transaction, or
(c) to be married.
(2) The minimal age of marriage of no matter sort is eighteen years.
The wording of part 14(2) of Act 560 states that the minimal age of no matter sort (whether or not ordinance, customary or mohammedan) is eighteen. Hence, underneath part 14 of Act 560, if the customary rites carried out over the weekend had been pursuant to a customary marriage, then even when the 12-year-old woman consented, such consent is void in regulation and as such the wedding can be a nullity. In that occasion, the regulation will assume that the kid was compelled to marry since in regulation, the kid doesn’t have authorized capability to consent to marriage.
But can we are saying identical for betrothal? Assuming what went on over the weekend had been customary rites pursuant to a betrothal, and the 12-year-old woman consented to identical, can we are saying such consent is void? This is a lacuna that must be crammed underneath the Children’s Act.
I say so as a result of contemplating critically our Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), one could bear me out on this angle. Section 14 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) supplies some helpful information. The mentioned provision reads as follows;
“In construing a provision of this Act where it is required for a criminal act or criminal intent that an act should be done or intended to be done without a person’s consent, or where it is required for a matter of justification or exemption that an act should be done with a person’s consent,(a) a consent is void if the person giving the consent is under twelve years of age, or in the case of an act involving a sexual offence, sixteen years, or is, by reason of insanity or of immaturity, or of any other permanent or temporary incapability whether from intoxication or any other cause, unable to understand the nature or consequences of the act to which the consent is given”
From part 14 of Act 29, an individual under the age of 12 can’t give consent typically and for functions of sexual actions, an individual under the age of 16 can’t give consent.
Does it imply that apart sexual actions, for the needs of different issues underneath Act 29, the 12-year-old woman might have consented to the betrothal?
Aftermath of the efficiency of the customary rites
Can there be legal sanctions after the efficiency of those customary rites?
We will think about this from Act 560 and Act 29.
- Under the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) Section 15 of Act 560 makes it legal for an individual to drive a baby to marry or be betrothed.
The mentioned part supplies;
“A person who contravenes a provision of sections 2 to 14 commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty penalty units or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or to both the fine and the imprisonment.”
Therefore, the place it’s established that the 12-year-old woman was compelled to marry or be betrothed, then the one who compelled the 12-year-old woman can be answerable for committing an offence. Even if, the 12-year-old little one agreed/consented to the wedding (that’s, if certainly what occurred was a customary marriage), the individual behind this can be answerable for committing an offence since in regulation, the 12-year-old woman can’t consent to marriage.
However, if the 12-year-old-girl consented to the betrothal (that’s, if certainly what occurred was a betrothal), then it could also be troublesome to conclude that the individual(s) behind it’s answerable for committing an offence underneath Act 560.
- Under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) Section 109 of Act 29 makes compelled marriage legal. The mentioned provision reads as follows;
“A person who by duress causes another person to marry against that other person’s will, commit a misdemeanour.”
This provision makes it legal for an individual to compel one other individual to marry. Considering sections 14 and 109 of Act 29, the next query must be checked out critically;
Assuming the 12-year-old woman consented to the customary marriage (which doesn’t embrace sexual exercise, at the very least we can’t affirm that), will such consent be nonetheless deemed void such that the individual(s) behind it will likely be liable underneath part 109 of Act 29?
I agree in regulation such consent is not going to validate the “purported customary marriage” however we’re taking a look at its legal sanctions right here.
I ask this as a result of underneath part 14 of Act 29, a baby of 12 years can consent to another factor apart sexual actions. Therefore, for my part, it could be troublesome to prosecute the individual(s) behind this entire factor if certainly it’s established that what occurred was a betrothal and never marriage. If what occurred was customary marriage, then such marriage is void in regulation and in addition the individual(s) behind it will likely be liable underneath each Act 29 and Act 560.
I discover it fallacious when folks argue that even when what occurred over the weekend was marriage, such marriage was carried out underneath customary regulation and as such it’s legitimate. I’ll reply this by quoting His Lordship Charles Crabbe JSC in GYAMFI AND ANOTHER V OWUSU AND OTHERS [1980] GLR 612, the place the Learned Justice acknowledged as follows;
“Where the customary law conflicts with the statute law, it cannot be over-emphasized that the statute law should prevail. This is no longer open to discussion. The authority of the customary law cannot override the authority of what Parliament has decreed.”
In conclusion, that is my humble opinion on the matter;
Assuming what occurred over the weekend was a customary marriage;
- Such customary marriage is void in regulation whether or not or not the 12-year-old little one consented.
- Persons behind this customary marriage can be liable to be prosecuted underneath Section 15 of Act 560 whether or not or not the 12-year-old woman consented.
- Persons behind this customary marriage can be liable to be prosecuted underneath Section 109 of Act 29 if the 12-year-old woman didn’t consent to the customary marriage.
- Persons behind this customary marriage is not going to be liable to be prosecuted underneath part 109 of Act 29 if the 12-year-old woman consented to the customary marriage (which on this occasion doesn’t embrace any sexual exercise).
Assuming what occurred over the weekend was a betrothal;
- Such betrothal shouldn’t be legitimate in regulation as it isn’t in the most effective curiosity of the 12-year-old little one.
- If the 12-year-old little one certainly consented to this betrothal, then there can’t be any legal sanctions towards the individual(s) behind it.
- If the 12-year-old little one was compelled or didn’t consent to this betrothal, then the individual(s) behind it will likely be liable underneath Section 15 of Act 560.
Author: Vincent Ekow Assafuah (Esq)
Member of Parliament (Old Tafo) and Deputy Minister Designate, Local Government, Rural Development and Decentralisation