The law on property sharing within cohabiting relationships (boyfriend/girlfriend) is in its finals stages, awaiting tabling on the floor of Parliament for legislation.

Spearheaded by the Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC), the proposed legislation seeks to draw modalities on how property acquired among couples that aren’t legally married, but have been living together, will be shared upon demise of the relationship.

Led by Vastina Rukimirana (Chairperson ULRC) the officials of the Commission had appeared before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to present their 2018/2019 Ministerial policy statement.

Among the activities to be undertaken in the coming year is the development of legislation to govern sharing of property in cohabitation relationships.

Rukimirana told the Committee that following consultations undertaken on the Marriage and Divorce Bill 2009, the Commission was advised to strike out the controversial clauses, if the Bill was to see the light of the day.

It should be recalled that the matter on property sharing was a subject of contention during the consideration of the Marriage and Divorce Bill 2009, but the clause on property sharing received a cold shoulder from MPs.

Clause 127(1) of the Bill states that where a spouse acquires property before or during the marriage and the property does not fall within matrimonial property as defined in section 115, but his or her spouse makes a contribution towards the improvement of that property, be it monetary or in kind, the spouse shall acquire a beneficial interest equivalent to the contribution she or he made.

Still clause 141(1) notes that upon separation of the spouses, matrimonial property shall not be divided between the parties but a court may order that the spouses share any income that may accrue from the matrimonial property.

The other point of contention was marital rape that received fierce reception from the male MPs in the 9^thParliament. This prompted Parliament to facilitate each MP with Shs5M to consult their voters on the matter.

During the Committee session, Oboth Oboth MP (West Budama County) narrated his ordeal during the consultations on the Marriage and Divorce Bill in his constituency.

He said the locals rejected the proposal in the Bill to outlaw marital rape saying the electorates argued that in the japadhola culture, they know they can never get anything (sex) on a silver platter and warned Parliament against ‘Americanising’ their culture.

The Commission revealed that following the protest against the Bill, there was an agreed position to strike out the contentious clauses and rename the bill; Marriage Bill.

Wilfred Niwagaba, the Shadow Attorney General welcomed the development saying tabling the Bill of such nature is long overdue explaining that couples in cohabiting relationships (who are the majority in Uganda) need this Bill the most.

“The law on sharing of property is long overdue if we actually kill the phobia around the Marriage and Divorce Bill. Most women are used and abused and at the end, they walk out empty handed,” Niwagaba said.

In their budget proposal, the Commission is seeking for Shs6.5Bn that would be used for printing the 7^thedition of the Laws of Uganda, both principal and subsidiary laws.

However, the money hasn’t been provided for in the upcoming budget despite the fact that the Commission is lagging behind by three years to undertake this exercise.

In the 2018/2019 budget, the Commission budget proposal is Shs18.58Bn, of which Shs5.397Bn (wage), while Shs12.823Bn for non-wage recurrent expenditure and Shs366.450Bn for development expenditure, with the above allocation including Shs6.5Bn for printing the revised editions and Shs800M to translate and print translated constitution in Luganda, Leb-Acholi and Kiswahili.

However, the Ministry of Finance has only provided Shs17,262,947,000Bn.

The Commission also intends to translated the Constitution into Leb-Lango and Rufumbira with the Commission informing the Committees that the Attorney General has been threatened with law suits, if the constitution isn’t translated in other languages as required by law.

By Stella Mugoya