GWANDA – The new Marriages Act continues to stir debate among communities,
especial rural where traditional leaders and their people feel not enough consultation
was made before being passed into law.

The Marriages Act has not been well received in communities here including the
custodians of traditions such as traditional leaders.

The new Marriages Act recognises civil partnerships and the option of paying lobola.
However, it has divided opinion, particularly among rural communities, who strongly
feel that it is counter-cultural.

According to legislation, Zimbabwean men can now pay lobola only if they want to do
so, because a bride price is a moral decision rather than a legal requirement under
the new Marriages Act.

However, in traditional African custom, marriage is a fundamental institution that
plays a significant role in society.

The Director of Law Development Commission, Netsai Zvakasikwa, shared the
import and impact of the new Marriages Act during a public engagement meeting in
Masvingo, where she said although the Government acknowledges the moral values
and cultural customs surrounding marriage, lobola payment is no longer obligatory.

Reacting to this development, Gwanda traditional leader, Chief Khulumani Mathema,
was emphatic that they were not consulted during the process of enacting the new
law.

“As they passed this law, were there any consultations? I doubt.

“People were supposed to be involved so that they could air their views, hence I
believe public consultations was going to be the best answer.

I don’t believe traditional leaders were engaged, particularly the kraal heads and
chiefs and others who are not in Parliament.

“This is a very unfair law because it defeats our culture, it is too modernised. It is
taking us back to the colonial rule which we ran away from.

We are not whites, hence paying of lobola must be a must.

Let us preserve our culture, because paying of lobola is way of appeasing and
respecting our traditional spirits,” said Chief Mathema.

Thuto Mavula of Mavula Law Firm gave an interpretation of what the law says and
cultural expectations.

“The basic is to understand that culture can never be statuterised. Western legal
concepts have no hold on what local culture says. There are some things
Government should just leave to traditional ways of dispute resolution and
enforcement.

“If your culture says pay lobola, then simply, as an African who knows the worth of
his culture, you pay lobola, despite what the new agenda is.

If umuntu engumfazi and knows hers place in community, her home and to her
husband and she values her culture in this regard, she will follow what is right and
proper,” said the lawyer.

Lushongwe villagers under Chief Ketso Mathe offered mixed reactions.

Debating the issue during a community meeting that was organised by Ward 9
Councillor, Mozitha Moyo, members of the community nearly exchanged blows.

A 71-year-old villager, who only identified himself as Ndlovu, said payment of lobola
is part of their culture, hence it has to be preserved.

“Culturally, paying of lobola was a way of uniting two families. If my son-in-law had
no cattle, as a loving father-in-law, I would lend them cattle so that my grandchildren
can have milk,” explained Ndlovu.

Another villager, Abedinico Ncube, said lobola payment must be mandatory.
“Njengomzali kumele ngidle njalo lomama kumele othole inkomo yakhe yahlanga (As
a parent I must benefit from lobola payment and the mother of the girl must get her
cow),” stressed Ncube.

A female participant, Gumbo-Ndlovu, concurred with other speakers saying lobola is
a good cultural practice that should be preserved.

“Payment of lobolo gives the man dignity and a sense of ownership. Without lobola,
the family is less respected,” she said.

Another speaker, who did not want to be identified, said in the past payment of
lobola was a good practice as compared to nowadays.

“I think this is a good law because these ama2000 generation are not worth lobola
payment. Imagine you pay lobola today and three days later the so- called wife is
caught with three boyfriends.

“As a man, who would have parted with his wealth, he may kill or injure her or the
boyfriend. But without paying lobola he will just let go because our children are no
longer worth marriage,” he said, adding that the problem cuts across both girls and
boys.