Muslim Marriage

“The new constitutional order is based on the recognition of our diversity and tolerance for other religious faiths.” - Daniels v Campbell and Others 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) para 54.

Prior to our progressive and tolerant constitution, marriage was an option available only between a man and a woman in terms of the Marriage Act of 1961. Today same-sex couples may marry in terms of the Civil Union Act of 2006 and the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act of 1998 allows for African customary marriages.

South Africa has yet to enact legislation (law) that specifically caters for Muslim marriage.

Luckily there have been a few positive strides: 

• There are instances where our law does in fact recognize a Muslim marriage to a certain degree in order to offer protection. For example, only a ‘spouse’ can apply for maintenance from the deceased estate of their loved one after his/ her passing. To be considered a surviving ‘spouse’ in terms the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, your marriage must, however, be legally recognized and therefore valid in South Africa. In the Constitutional Court case quoted above, the surviving wife (married in terms of Muslim law) was acknowledged as a ‘spouse' and in the court case of Hassan v Jacobs the surviving spouse of a polygamous Muslim marriage was also accepted as a surviving ‘spouse.' 

• The Muslim Marriages Bill is a draft law that was compiled back in 2003. This Bill has, however, been subject to much criticism. For example, it states that Muslim Marriages will automatically be OUT of community of property unless parties enter into an ante-nuptial agreement stating otherwise. In terms of South Africa’s other marriage laws mentioned above, a marriage will automatically be IN community of property. Being married IN community of property often offers protection to a spouse who gives up his/ her career and opportunities to stay at home and take care of the children. Should the couple divorce, parties married IN community of property will split everything fifty-fifty. 

• A few years ago Imams (Muslim clerics) were trained and appointed as authorized marriage officers, enabling a Muslim marriage to be solemnized by a registered Imam marriage officer in terms of the Marriage Act. Whilst the aforementioned is great news, many questions still remain unanswered pending the enactment of the Muslim Marriage Bill to deal specifically with many rights, responsibilities and consequences of a Muslim marriage. 

The point of having a specific act (law) such as the Marriage Act, Civil Union Act and the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, is to offer case sensitive regulation and protection. 

Without a specific act, many questions that arise include the logistics and rights when it comes to the resolution of the marriage, for example. There are also a few other concerns regarding Islam law which have been cited as reasons why the enactment of the Bill is dragging its feet, including the man’s exclusive right to end the marriage unilaterally (talaq) and the custom that a woman may be wed by proxy.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion… This section does not prevent legislation recognizing… marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law… Recognition… must be consistent with this section and the other provisions of the Constitution.” – Section 15(1), 15(a)(i) and 15(3)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

We wish you a wonderful and thought-provoking Heritage Month. South Africa's rich diversity of religious communities, cultures, languages and customs have a great deal to offer. As the preamble to our Constitution asks, may we all live ‘united in our diversity.’

www.legalhero.co.za

The Curious Case of Prince v President

Prince dreamed about becoming an Attorney. The Law Society, however, refused to register Prince as an Attorney due to his two previous convictions on the count of dagga possession. 

Prince took the Law Society to Court and based his arguments on the following: infringement of his right to freedom of religion as a Rastafarian, unfair discrimination as part of a minority group in South Africa, the right to choose his trade and occupation freely and infringement of his right to human dignity. 

The Constitutional Court (decided on 12 December 2000):

• Yes, the Constitutional Court agreed that the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act of 1992 DOES in fact infringe Prince’s constitutional right to freedom of religion;
• This limitation is, however, justified. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited in terms of section 36 of our Constitution “only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.”
• The State has an important obligation to combat the use of and trade of drugs and has signed international agreements to do so. There is furthermore little information available on the use of dagga and South Africa’s Rastafarian community to justify a religious exemption.

Did you know? 

• · Cannabis/ marijuana/ dagga has been in use for over 8 millennia;
• · R300 million: the cost in Gauteng alone to arrest, prosecute and keep marijuana offenders in jail - according to research conducted by the Anti-Drug Alliance NGO; 
• · Some argue that there is very little evidence to support that Marijuana is harmful or addictive whilst others argue that all medicines and even herbs have side effects;
• · USA: about 23 States have legalized medical marijuana, and others are in the process of following suit;
• · South Africa: the Medical Innovation Bill (draft law to legalize marijuana in South Africa for medical, economical and industrial use), was introduced in Parliament in February 2014. It could take a number of years for the bill to be signed and become law. Some argue that the Bill is just a copy and paste version and does not cater for South Africa’s unique circumstances. 

Unfortunately Prince’s dream to become an Attorney did not materialize. One must note that the Medical Innovation Bill, even if it were law, would not have helped Prince. Reason: Prince used marijuana for religious/ spiritual purposes and not for medical reasons. In this case the Constitutional Court, however, once again acknowledges our right to freedom of religion and quotes a well-known passage from the case Christian v Minister of Education 2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC) para 36: 

Yours Faithfully, 

Legal Hero 

www.legalhero.co.za 

Your School's Uniform and Dress Code

The Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) declared a ban on teachers wearing Islamic headscarves unconstitutional on Friday, 13 March 2015.

The decision reminds us of the South African Constitutional Court case of a few years ago: MEC for Education v Pillay 2008. Yes, South Africa has one of the best constitutions in the world.

With Human Rights Day around the corner (21st of March), let's have a look at the Pillay case... 

It could therefore be within a learner’s right to wear a nose stud to school if it forms part of the learner's religion or culture. Schools are thus advised to allow for a procedure in terms of which a learner can apply to wear a religious or cultural piece. According to the Pillay case, the fact that an exemption might encourage more learners to express their religion or culture, should be celebrated and not feared.

Proudly South African.

www.legalhero.co.za