|
By Abdulrahman O.J. Kaniki Most African societies which still observe their customs and traditions do recognise and practice polygamy. That is to say, customary laws in many African societies still bless polygamous marriage institutions.
Islamic law also permits polygamous marriages. That is why many communities from African and Asian continents wherein Islamic religion is mostly professed are noted for practicing polygamy.
To be noted however, is that since it has been a practice to a number of husbands not to bother to consult their first wives before they contract second and subsequent marriages, is it possible before the law for such wives to lodge objections to such marriages?
This question is tenable because the wives of the first marriages may have good reasons as to why their husbands should not contract other marriages.
The Law of Marriage Act gives such wives room to object the marriages. Section 20(2) of the Act states that:
“Where a man married by a polygamous marriage has given notice of an intended marriage, his wife or, if he has more than one wife, may give notice of objection to the registrar or registration officer to whom the notice of intention was given on the ground that:
(a) having regard to the husband’s means, the taking of another wife is likely to result in hardship to his existing wife or wives and infant children, if any, or
(b) the intended wife is of notoriously bad character or is suffering from an infectious or otherwise communicable disease or is likely to introduce grave discord into the household.”
Upon receiving the notice of objection, the registrar or registration officer shall, according to section 21 of the Act, transmit it to the Marriage Conciliatory Board. On receipt of a notice of objection together with the notice of intention, the Board, under section 22 of the Act, shall require the attendance of the parties to the intended marriage and of the objector and shall hear them and their witnesses, if any, and any other person the Board may think necessary to hear for a just determination of the objection, and shall make findings of the facts alleged in the notice of objection and shall either, by order, direct that the intended marriage is not to be contracted or shall dismiss the objection.
Should it be argued that the grounds which are provided for by the Act for a wife to object a second or subsequent marriage are too restrictive. It appears that framers of the Act only concentrated much on economic and social consideration.
Conjugal love and affection which are the most pillars for a healthy and happy marriage and of which ought not to be shared in any way by anybody else apart from the spouses did not feature in their minds.
What about potential partiality in terms of conjugal rights? Is this not a healthy and sufficient ground if a wife in the subsisting marriage senses that the moment her husband marries a second and new wife shall be the end for her to enjoy her conjugal right in terms of sharing a marital bed? The legislators ought to have born in their minds, as one writer argues, that:
“Women are also human beings with intellectual and emotional needs. They also feel jealous at the idea of sharing a husband just as a man would not like to share his wife.”
All the same, despite some restriction on the part of grounds to be raised there is a room for a wife to object a second or subsequent marriage by her husband.
That is to say before the law a wife who is opposed to her husband’s second or subsequent marriage has an avenue to raise and lodge objection to the relevant body. In that she has to advance reasons as enumerated under the Act as to why her husband should not contract another marriage.
But how many wives have done so? Do they have the courage to do so? Are they aware that the law allows them to object those second and subsequent marriages? Let these questions be challenges to wives whose husbands want to go for second or subsequent marriages even without consulting them.
|
