Cape Town - The Divorce Amendment Bill, which specifically relates to Muslim marriages and was recently adopted by the portfolio committee on justice and correctional services in Parliament, was met with mixed reactions by legal rights organisations and political parties.
The bill’s objectives, according to committee chairperson Bulelani Magwanishe, are to amend the Divorce Act, add a definition of a Muslim marriage, protect the interests of dependent and minor children of a Muslim marriage, redistribute assets upon the dissolution of a Muslim marriage, and allow for the forfeiture of patrimonial benefits.
The bill stems from a court judgment in Women’s Legal Centre (WLC) vs President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2022) ZACC 23, in which the Constitutional Court recognised the need for and importance of protecting Muslim women and children in Muslim marriages, particularly on the dissolution of a Muslim marriage.
Director Seehaam Samaai, from WLC, who launched the application about 10 years ago, said although they welcome the adoption of the bill, they were not entirely satisfied because the bill was adopted without any changes.
“One of the issues was that the bill (although numerous submissions were made by the Women’s Legal Centre) was adopted without any changes, even though we welcome it.
“The issue is that we wanted the act to be backdated to 1994. Clearly, the portfolio committee did not take those recommendations into consideration.
“The WLC has no other issues regarding the amendment, and there is now an opportunity for the provinces and those living in the provinces to engage with the bill during the deliberations of the National Council of Provinces,” said Samaai.
The Al Jama-ah political party, which presented before Parliament a Private Members Bill (PMB) on the Registration of Muslim Marriages Bill earlier this year, was also not happy with the bill.
Party CEO Professor Muhammad Haron said Ganief Hendricks proposed several legal changes to promote the socio-economic protection of Muslim children and women and to restore their dignity, upholding their rights to substantively equal treatment before the law.
Hendricks was alarmed that certain recommendations were entirely ignored, leading to a gross distortion and violation of Sharia principles,” said Haron.
He said: “What is more concerning is that the objectives aimed at the protection of Muslim children and women, as ordered by the courts, would be achieved without these contravening amendments – ones that would make their inclusion highly questionable, and that would amount to nothing less than the state’s entanglement in matters of religion – an approach that was deliberately avoided by our high court.