Makin’ Bills.
The past two days we have spent working with people from UNDP, several ministries of the government, and several NGO leaders in the consultative process of drafting two bills for passage by parliament soon. These bills are both strongly supported by the government, and are being updated from bills they attempted to pass in 2004 and 2005.
Yesterday (Thursday), we refined and discussed the Sexual Offenses Act. It was a fascinating cultural, political, and legal process. Meetings here are begun with a Muslim and a Christian prayer, tea (with spam-wiches!), and finally an introduction and initiation of proceedings. The Sexual Offenses Bill was discussed for the full day. We begun by attempting to define “rape”, and subsequently “sexual assault”, by a meticulously detailed group discussion. The entire day was hamstrung by the complicating factor of the dualist legal system and the considerations that traditional/customary law force on our ability to define things effectively. For one of the first times of this trip, I felt in my zone. At first I assumed that any comments/opinions I offered would be scoffed at, but after offering a couple suggestions and finding my opinion valued and welcomed, I jumped right in. The bill is intended to protect people from sexual violence, harassment, or abuse, and to define the legal aspects of crimes of exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography, incest, and the aggravating factors such as one party being in a position of trust or authority. It was, at one point, suggested that there be a provision for creating a crime or punishment for “teenage pregnancy”, whereby the boy who had impregnated the girl would be punished in some way as a comparative injury to having impregnated the girl who can now no longer attend school for that year. What’s that you ask—why can’t the girl attend school until she is physically unable? Well, to quote the customary law expert in the room, “AH! No, no, no, no. We do not want pregnant girls in our schools! Think of the example that shows!” Keep in mind as well that this country lacks the technical capacity for DNA testing or paternity testing, so (in certain towns/municipalities in the country where just such a law as this are in force) there is no way of determining the paternity of the child even if it is alleged. Another gem from the day was finding out that despite our efforts to show that the rape definition being used made it exclusively a male crime—emphasizing penetration as distinctive of rape, whereas touching is simply sexual assault—and there was concern expressed about this only by UNDP, not by any of the domestic stakeholders. Also, “his” is apparently a gender neutral term… at least according to this group of drafters, “his” is gender neutral in legislation because it is simply the word one uses.
Today, we are discussing the Matrimonial Causes Act, which defines the legal parameters of divorces, annulments, and the financial provision, child custody, and other relief involved. We have hit a snag. The dualism between customary marriages (which recognize polygamist marriages and are not commonly understood by the population to require registration—despite the fact that the law requires it) and common law/statutory marriages (which are monogamist and registered). The application of divorce provisions to polygamist, customary marriages are causing difficulty beyond the capacity of this group to handle. It appears this bill will not receive attention substantively today, but we are discussing issues that the group would like to consult experts to understand better. The Sexual Offenses Act will go forward, but this act will languish for several more months.
Working in these meetings has felt empowering. It shows the impotence of the UN, and also the efficacy that can be found through local consultation and refinement. The UN can really do nothing without local initiative. They have attended and advised and assisted, but even things that seem archaic or draconian in terms of cultural idiosyncrasies and traditional customs regarding gender relations and administrative/enforcement functions/powers of the government, are impossible to adjust from the outside. These people want to protect their women, their kids, their families, from unnecessary disruption, from violent attack, from sexual violation. But, they want to do it according to, and in alignment with, their values and customs. Western ideas are welcomed, but not necessarily accepted.
T.I.A. (This is Africa.)
