A Ghanaian citizen, Samuel Ampomah, has dragged the state to court over restrictions imposed by the Marriages Act (CAP 127) that enforces monogamy.
The Marriages Act (Cap 127) is the law that governs marriage under the ordinance in Ghana. It is presently the only strict monogamous marriage arrangement under Ghanaian law. Anyone who breaches this law commits an offence and can be charged with bigamy.
Apparently, Mr. Ampomah, who is already legally married, feels that his human rights are being violated because the law prevents him from marrying another wife, despite the fact that he wants to.
He, thus, wants the part of the law that restricts men from marrying more than one wife to be repealed.
In his request, Mr Ampomah is seeking a declaration from the court to impose on the State to amend CAP 127 to respect choices and fundamental human rights to marry more in line with customary and Islamic arrangements of Ghana’s marital laws.
Hearing the case on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, Mr Ampomah’s counsel briefed the court, and the Attorney General in response was to file the necessary documents for the case.
In a 23-page document signed by Chief State Attorney, Patience Adumua-Lartey, the Attorney General explained that the various forms of marriage as captured by CAP 127 are simply based on the principles of the various religions regarding marriage and not a creation of the lawmakers.
The Attorney-General contended that the plaintiff’s submissions do not raise any real or genuine issues of constitutional interpretation such as would invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
“Per his Statement of Case, invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff, Samuel Ampomah states inter alia that the effect of Sections 74(1)(b) of CAP 127 and Sections 262 , 263, 264, and 265(2) of Act 29 constitute a breach of Articles 17(2) and 21(1) ( c) of the Constitution by prohibiting an identifiable section of Ghanaian wife if they wish so.
“Section 74 of CAP 127 is clear, concise, and admits of no ambiguity and that what CAP 127 did was just give legal backing to the religious principle which has been in existence since time immemorial,” he added.
Additionally, the A-G noted that, considering the reliefs sought in the plaintiff’s action, it is clear that this is not a case that calls for interpretation of the Constitution so as to vest the Supreme Court with the appropriate jurisdiction per Article 130(1) (a).
“Marriage under the ordinance is essentially distinct from Christian marriage as stated on the RGD website; ‘Marriage under Ordinance is the Civil Union available to any Ghanaian to take advantage of, and despite some confusion, it is entirely secular and not religious(Christian) at all,” the A-G said.
“Part 3 of the Marriages Act, 1884-1885(CAP 127) deals with Christian and other marriages. Thus the use of ‘other marriages’ suggests that the part is not limited to Christian marriages and thus may be construed to mean Marriage under the ordinance,” the report added.
Source: The Independent Ghana