You shall eat from your own sweat

Matrimonial Property Bill 2013 Commandment:

You shall eat from your own sweat

Today during the Church Service a couple arose and walked to the podium. The programmer wanted the pair to greet us and invite us to their wedding. They were dressed in marching khaki suits and smiling. They were easy on inviting everybody to their wedding as well as reception to “eat rice”. We cheered and congratulated them. Then they went and sat down.

Their wedding comes against the backdrop of Matrimonial Property Bill 2013. I am not wishing them to divorce. On the contrary I would love to learn that they have a happy marriage. But the bill affects them and millions of Kenyans. This bill is not just for the married, the bachelors or the estranged. It is a family bill covering all aspects of a family as we know it. It is a bill for all cultures and religions. Even the children are entitled to the contribution either as a way of succession where they inherit their parents’ property or by the Children’s Law which spells out the legal procedure of maintenance of the children if the marriage falls apart.

The proponents of this bill have argued that it will promote hard work. That it will punish lazy gold diggers and parasites who by the way can be either husband or wives. This is because the male MPs amended the clause that read in the event of dissolution of marriage the couple will share their matrimonial property 50-50. Now the sharing will be based on one’s contribution and not just the mere fact that you are there as a passive spouse.

The bill too recognizes that there are non-monetary contributions by either spouse such as household chores, companionship, taking care of the family business, childcare and farm work. The judge will quantify the non-evidential input of the estranged spouse by estimating how much they have contributed. This will offer interpretation of the law and ensure that the hard work of that spouse does not go to waste.

The bill also protects those who were rich before the marriage by specifying that the property in question is not their hard-earned empire before the marriage but that which they have jointly owned with the spouse. This means that if either spouse inherited property from their parents the incoming party does not automatically get entitled to the property by the mere fact that the rich spouse has married him/her. This will again wean the non-contributory parties and perhaps jolt them to reality that marriage is an institution of excellence just like school where you eat your own sweat. It will be that serious.

The beauty of this bill is that it will put a rest to the drama we have witnessed on family property. Spouses kill children, wife, and husband and yours truly. Just because of the pending land dispute. This is about to end.

But there are grey areas. How for example will the doubting spouse keep track of the monetary contribution of the said properties? Will they be keeping receipts of every transaction-and mind you some transactions rely on good faith and trust.  Does this bill encourage divorce by dangling the carrot of share on basis of one’s contribution? Of course yes. It does this by breaking the chains of living unhappily ever after to living happily until the estranged spouse gets bored, feels they got a raw deal or thinks what they got is not what they had bargained for. It provides a window for the visionary to realize nothing is permanent. Life on earth is just phase one. You cannot reverse time or relive it.  As such the marriage is headed to a contract. No more vague soap opera scenes. It will be give and take not give and give and give.

And talking about giving and taking I fault the female parliamentarians for their feeble fight they waged on the floor of the house. Understandably, they are the minority in the house as well as in the parliamentary committees and cannot win a vote-based decision. The majority of male MPs, just like other Kenyan men are chauvinistic. Their patriarchal egos are easily bruised. They see women as threat. Sadly, the women MPs dwelled on how they will withhold conjugal rights from their husbands and boyfriends in solidarity and protest of the quote unquote draconian matrimonial property bill. They stooped so low to argue that they wash the dishes, clean after their partners and cook. The fallacy they wanted the public to believe is that they do not have female house helps who they underpay and overwork yet they themselves are overpaid and underworked. It cast them as hypocrites, selfish and an insult to the progressive fight of women rights. As far as I am concerned, all of them are adults and the issue of withholding or releasing conjugal rights is not even in the wide picture of matrimonial property. It is a bedroom affair whose consent and consensus is enough to vindicate anyone of any form of rape. There is nothing as date or marital rape when two consenting adult parties agree by 100 per cent majority to hit the sack.

I have been careful not to trivialize a serious issue as matrimonial property but the female MPs failed me. They let down the female electorate and feminist males who believe that the fight for gender equality is justified and no matter how much the casualties the war should proceed to a conclusive logical end.

One thing I realized is that few if any MPs research before hitting the floor to argue. Majority open their mouths and switch off their minds. Then they go ahead to deny electronic verbatim which they say it was taken out of context. Thankfully we have brilliant professionals in our August House. But professionals also mislead. Take a keg powder combination of a lawyer cum politician and in this case an MP. They will spin the story half and never argue objectively. Others will intimidate the journalists with crammed quotations of local and international laws. Unlucky are the MPs who speak their mind and antagonize themselves with popular waves. It may end up being the last paragraph of their political obituary. But I dare say better such heroes who stand with Wanjiku than hundreds of cowards who doze and forget their electoral mandate.

There have been genuine concerns from interested parties on the danger posed by the matrimonial property bill. For starters, the self declared crusaders of the bill assume that the bill discriminates against women and it automatically favors men. Wrong. The bill does not explicitly say that the estranged spouse should be a woman. The ladies I have interviewed have expressed utter apathy toward this particular piece of legislation. One posed: How do you expect a man to agree that he contributed less than me and mind you the property is registered under his name and there is no evidence on my majority contribution? Such concerns need an ear. The women must practice due diligence and ensure that the property is written under their name or under the name of all the contributing parties. They should make photocopies, scan duplicates and keep the documents in a save just in case of anything. Anything can happen. No one wants to start from the scratch after their effort is blown by the masculine wind.

As this bill awaits the presidential assent or rejection, I urge sober discussion of its contents. I think it would be better if the president assents to it since its pros are more than cons then amendments can be made with time. It is a landmark law that will promote gender equality.

The writer is a 3^rd year student of Bachelors of Arts Degree in Communication and Media at Chuka University. He blogs at musyokangui.blogspot.com

Email your thoughts to musyokangui02@gmail.com