The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs continued its consultations on the Marriage Bill, which seeks to create one inclusive legislation to govern all marriages in South Africa. After travelling across the country gathering public inputs from citizens in eight of the nine provinces, the committee today received oral submissions on the Bill from advocacy organisations, religious groups, one political party and an academic.
During today’s virtual session, the committee Chairperson Mr Mosa Chabane said the committee still intends to hear the views and recommendations of the people of Limpopo, following the inputs from members of the public in the other provinces.
Stakeholders making submissions today included the Triangle Project, the United Ulama Council of South Africa, Freedom of Religion South Africa, the Christian View Network, the Free Society, Al Jamah and Professor Andreas van Wyk.
The non-profit organisation Triangle Project made a submission supporting the recognition and inclusion of the LBGTQI+ community in customary, civil and religious unions. Meanwhile, United Ulama and Al Jamah argued for separate marriage laws or an omnibus law to protect Muslim values.
Ms Bianca van Rooi from the Triangle Project said: “We submit that inclusivity can be created by bringing all marriages under one umbrella that recognises that people who enter marriages and similar relationship commitments have diverse identities, backgrounds and forms of social, religious and cultural belonging that include and extend beyond their gender, sex and sexual orientation. LGBTQI+ persons have culture and custom, religious beliefs and traditions, and they have a desire to give expression to them.”
Mr Ismail Muhammad, United Ulama Council’s legal adviser, warned that if the Bill passes in its current form, Muslim marriages will lose their religious value. He also criticised the Bill for lacking diversity. “This is a secular and atheist legislation intended for religious people. We propose an omnibus law or separate law for Muslims to solemnise their marriages in terms of the Sharia law,” Mr Muhammad suggested.
The Free Society Institute supported the idea of an inclusive law that would ensure both freedom of religion and freedom for those who do not subscribe to any religion. However, the organisation had reservations about the Bill’s apparent gender discrimination in the definition of polygamy. The organisation submitted that the Bill’s definition of polygamous marriage as polygyny, excluding polyandry, reinforced gender bias. The institute asked for non-gendered terminology to be used to fairly acknowledge all multiple-spousal unions, saying that inclusive definitions avoid discrimination and will reduce legal challenges based on inequality.
Prof van Wyk believes that the Bill in its present form cannot proceed, unless the committee removes problematical clauses, chapter 6 in its entirety and redrafts others, or refers the Bill back to the Department of Home Affairs to redraft to eliminate the present problems. In addition, the Home Affairs department should consult with the Department of Justice on the Law Commission’s project on matrimonial property.
“The major problem is chapter 6, which is not part of the remit of the Department of Home Affairs, and which is not even mentioned as an object of the Act in clause 2. The central proposal in chapter 6 is the abolition of the very idea of a legal matrimonial property regime in our law and its replacement by an individual choice of regime by the parties to every marriage.
“This is totally unpractical, based on incorrect assumptions about matrimonial property law, and would make South Africa unique in the world and create chaos in our private international law,” he said.
However, he did not find anything wrong with the definition of polygamous marriage being restricted to a male spouse with more than one wife. He is of the view that this is not problem, given social reality.
The department’s Legal Advisor, Advocate Moses Malekate, welcomed the submissions and said they will assist in the further development of the draft legislation. In welcoming the submissions and thanking the stakeholders, Mr Chabane reiterated the point that he made when the public consultation process started – that Parliament and the committee have not decided on the from the Bill will take yet.
He also thanked the organisations for contributing to the discourse of the Marriage Bill and said that all their submissions are equally important for the parliamentary process.
Sakhile Mokoena
2 December 2025
Arrange a tour