Man withdraws suit demanding right to marry more than one wife from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ghana is set to decide on a notice of discontinuance filed by a petitioner who had earlier asked the court to grant men the right to practice polygamy.

Samuel Ampomah had earlier filed a suit at the apex court asking to be granted the right to more than one wife under the marriage ordinance law.

However the farmer according to a report by Graphic.com.gh on October 22, 2022 filed a notice to discontinue the case.

Mr Ampomah had gone to the Supreme Court in September 2021 with the case that it was unconstitutional for the Marriages Act, 1884 (CAP 127), and the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) to forbid a man from marrying more than one wife under the ordinance and also make it a crime.

It was the case of the petitioner that CAP 127 and Act 29 violated Articles 17 (2) and 21(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which respectively prohibits discrimination and guarantees the right to practice any religion without restriction.

The petitioner sought various reliefs including a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(2) and 21(1) (c) of the 1992 Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution, Section 74 (1) of CAP 127 which forbids a man from marrying more than one wife under the ordinance was unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void.

He further sought the court to make a declaration that Sections 262, 263, 264 and 265(2) of Act 29 which make it an offence for a man to marry again under the ordinance while he is already married are unconstitutional.

The laws of Ghana under CAP 127 recognises three types of marriages - customary, Islamic and ordinance.

Men under the first two types of marriage are permitted to marry more than one wife while marriage under ordinance restricts a man to a wife.

Mr Ampomah in his suit argued that marriage under the ordinance applied solely to Christian marriage, but that there was no evidence that monogamous marriage was part of Christianity.

The petitioner posited that monogamous marriage was a European culture which had been made to look like a religious or Christian culture.


Mr Ampomah argued that making it compulsory for Christians to marry only one was an imposition which discriminates against people in Ghana who identified as Christians.


“Plaintiff maintains that in the Christian manual of life known as the Bible, there is no prohibition against Christian men from marrying more than one wife anyway, making the prohibition in Sections 74(1) (b) of CAP 127, and Sections 262, 263 and 265 (2) an undue and improper imposition on the lives of Christians,” he argued.

The Attorney General in its defense to the suit argued that the petitioner had not made any case to be granted the reliefs that he sought.

According to the A-G, the three different types of marriages captured under CAP 127 were based on the various religious practices in the country.
“It is trite that customary and Mohammedan marriages are potentially polygamous, while the Bible which guides Christianity upholds monogamy. This principle is established throughout the Bible and is practiced by Christians the world over,” the A-G argued.
The A-G further argued that the plaintiff had not properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

According to the A-G, the fact that the plaintiff sought interpretation did not mean the law he complained about met the interpretation criteria set out by case law.
The A-G contended that Section 74 (1) (b) of CAP 127 was clear, concise and admitted no ambiguity, and that there was no need for interpretation or enforcement by the court.

Man withdraws suit demanding right to marry more than one wife from Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ghana is set to decide on a notice of discontinuance filed by a petitioner who had earlier asked the court to grant men the right to practice polygamy.

Samuel Ampomah had earlier filed a suit at the apex court asking to be granted the right to more than one wife under the marriage ordinance law.

However, the farmer, according to a report by Graphic.com.gh on October 22, 2022, filed a notice to discontinue the case.

Mr Ampomah went to the Supreme Court in September 2021 with the case that it was unconstitutional for the Marriage Act, 1884 (CAP 127) and the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) to forbid a man from marrying more than one wife under the ordinance and also make it a crime.

It was the case of the petitioner that CAP 127 and Act 29 violated Articles 17 (2) and 21(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which respectively prohibits discrimination and guarantee the right to practice any religion without restriction.

The petitioner sought various reliefs, including a declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of Articles 17(2) and 21(1) (c) of the 1992 Constitution and the spirit of the Constitution, Section 74 (1) of CAP 127 which forbids a man from marrying more than one wife under the ordinance was unconstitutional, and, therefore, null and void.

He further sought the court to make a declaration that Sections 262, 263, 264 and 265(2) of Act 29 that makes it an offence for a man to marry again under the ordinance while he is already married as unconstitutional.

The laws of Ghana under CAP 127 recognise three types of marriages - customary, Islamic and ordinance.

Men under the first two types of marriage are permitted to marry more than one wife, while marriage under ordinance restricts a man to a wife.

Mr Ampomah, in his suit, argued that marriage under the ordinance applied solely to Christian marriage but that there was no evidence that monogamous marriage was part of Christianity.

The petitioner posited that monogamous marriage was European culture which had been made to look like a religious or Christian culture.


Mr Ampomah argued that making it compulsory for Christians to marry only one was an imposition which discriminated against people in Ghana who identified as Christians.


“Plaintiff maintains that in the Christian manual of life known as the Bible, there is no prohibition against Christian men from marrying more than one wife anyway, making the prohibition in Sections 74(1) (b) of CAP 127, and Sections 262, 263 and 265 (2) an undue and improper imposition on the lives of Christians,” he argued.

In its defence to the suit, the Attorney General argued that the petitioner had not made any case to be granted the reliefs he sought.

According to the A-G, the three different types of marriages captured under CAP 127 were based on the various religious practices in the country.

“It is trite that customary and Mohammedan marriages are potentially polygamous, while the Bible which guides Christianity upholds monogamy. This principle is established throughout the Bible and is practiced by Christians the world over,” the A-G argued.

The A-G further argued that the plaintiff had not properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

According to the A-G, the fact that the plaintiff sought interpretation did not mean the law he complained about met the interpretation criteria set out by case law.

The A-G contended that Section 74 (1) (b) of CAP 127 was clear, concise and admitted no ambiguity, and that there was no need for interpretation or enforcement by the court.

You can also watch this edition of GhanaWeb Special:

 

GA/SEA