Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 456364,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/456364/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 429,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Kanyua",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 981,
        "legal_name": "Priscilla Nyokabi Kanyua",
        "slug": "priscilla-nyokabi-kanyua"
    },
    "content": "The history of the Marriage Bill in this country is not a very interesting one. In 1968, the first Committee on the marriage laws was set up by the First President of the Republic of Kenya, hon. Jomo Kenyatta. It is really instructive that many years after that initiative, we are about to make hon. Uhuru Kenyatta the president that will assent to this law in the way that hon. Members have discussed this Bill. In 1971, the first Marriage Bill was brought to this House but it was defeated because of the fear of affiliation then. Members of Parliament at that time did not want to have affiliation issues legislated into law. That has now come to pass. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, in 2000, this House passed the Children’s Act, which gives protection to children. More important, under our current constitutional framework, children born both in wedlock and out of wedlock are protected. So, matters of affiliation are no longer a subject or question in our laws. The existing laws have settled the questions on children and provide the protection that children need to be accorded. What remains to be sorted out – which is what this Bill is doing – is the question of spouses and the question of a man and a woman who choose to come together in matrimony. As it has been said here, the marriage laws that we have been using in this country have colonial heritage in them. The African Christian Marriage and Divorce Act as well as the interpretations that have been done by our courts on matters of marriage have been based on colonial laws. At one point in time, we actually had judges dismiss our marriages as “wife purchase”. They said that in a case where a wife was required to give evidence against her husband that particular wife was not a wife for the purposes of law because dowry had been paid for her and she was, therefore, purchased. Therefore, she was compelled to give evidence against her husband. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, we have come a long way. Respecting our culture of payment of dowry is in no way wife purchase. The marriage law that we are discussing now will put that matter to rest. We can continue to enjoy culture as we do in payment of dowry. I come from a community where dowry is quite a big story. In the Kikuyu culture, you are not married until such a time as your dowry has been paid and what we call “breaking the shoulder” has been done. It is a good ceremony. We come The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}