OF MARRIAGE AGE

Of marriage age (THIS ARTICLE WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE NATION) BY ANANIYA ALICK PONJE The issue of 16 years being the legal marriage age when girls may marry with the consent of their parents or guardians has been at the centre of public attention since the last sitting of Parliament passed the Amendment Bill containing the same. Parliament is being accused of being callous and inconsiderate. Many individuals and the civil society feel Parliament showed the greatest level of imprudence by unanimously resolving that a girl may be married off at the age of 16. During a meeting which the Legal Affairs Committee of Parliament held recently in Lilongwe, Malawi Law Society (MLS) assistant chief law reform officer, Chizaso Nyirongo, argued that results of a research which the Law Commission conducted in 1998 showed that people in the rural areas did not find anything wrong with a girl-child marrying at the age of even 14 and less. He added that since the age was initially at 15, then it had to be shifted to 16 as a matter of ‘striking the balance’. In other words, the law body felt that since people in the rural areas disagreed with their urban counterparts, it was imperative that the legal marriage age be pegged in the middle so that it should not ultimately favour anyone. The issue of marriage age has been on the Order Paper since 1998, only to resurface a decade later, and the Law Commission feels that research which was conducted more than a decade ago is still valid. In essence, when the research on when girls may be married off was being conducted, this country was experiencing a low maternal mortality rate as compared to how the situation is now. And perhaps, as a result, people did not care much about the legal marriage age. It was a time when girls were not as easily lured into immoral behaviours as they do now. Of course, the situation might have been there, but it was not as intense as it is now. Now that the modern girl-child seems to be easily consumed by dangerous immoral desires, the Law Commission should have conducted another research to find out if those people in the rural areas who held with the idea that girls may be married off at 16 will still approve of it. I declare without fear of contradiction that they would retract their earlier decision. The Law Commission should also have put into consideration the fact that before a decade ago once girls got married, the marriages lasted while most modern day girls do not take long to separate with their husbands. This is something that cannot be fully explained scientifically, but it is just as a result of the fluctuating changes instituted by nature. Now when these girls break up with their husbands, they begin to indulge in immoral behaviours which is a dangerous thing for their lives in this era of HIV/AIDS prevalence. Hence, the 1998 research is rendered invalid now. In certain situations, it is not always prudent to legalise something just because the majority has approved of it. There is need for the application of a certain kind of rationality. Much as democracy favours the majority, there are instances which would need to be compromised. That is why even in legal proceedings natural justice may supersede outright defined provisions. Certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by the majority. In fact those people who approve that their girl children could be married off at the age of 16 might have not been received any sensitization on the demerits of the move in this era. They might not have been able to figure out the repercussions that would come with the act. After all, the 1998 MLS research showed that they are rural people (who are rarely exposed to general civic education on issues to do with the general welfare of the girl-child). Their urban counterparts have misgivings towards the issue because they have access to general sensitization on many issues. In fact, the law commission should have considered some of the most significant rights of the girl-child before presenting the enactment. The girl child just like any other child has the right to education and by allowing her to get married at 16, the Law Commission smothered this universal right. Above everything, since it is more than a decade ago since the last research on the marriage age was conducted, the Law Commission should have conducted another research now before presenting the enactment. There are many changes which nature brings, and a 1998 research may not be valid now. (I am a second year student at Chancellor College)