Attorney General Anil Nandlall on Thursday held consultations on an amendment to the law to give more rights to persons in common law unions.
Nandlall said that the session should have been held before the tabling of the Civil Law (Rights of Persons in Common Law Union) Bill 2012, but he had not anticipated that it would have been given much support.
Its objective is to address a lacuna in the law that has caused many miscarriages of justice, according to the Government Information Agency (GINA).
Stakeholders such as the Red Thread Association were given the opportunity to discuss their concerns and seek clarifications on the provisions of the Bill, which is set to be debated in Parliament shortly.
The bill was tabled on June 27. GINA said Human Services and Social Security Minister Jennifer Webster also attended the meeting.
Nandlall said that the lacuna relates to the non-availability of a right given to a spouse of a common law union to approach court in the absence of a will that would have appointed him/her executrix or executor.
“Not being equipped with the ability to do so, a common law spouse was really left in the cold… this was raised by the Bar Association with then Chancellor Desiree Bernard, who accepted that it was an oversight.
This Bill is intended to correct that oversight,” he explained. Clause Two of the Bill deals with the conferment of the right of the spouse to access the law in relation to intestate succession, same as a married spouse; while Clause Three, is seeking to amend the Family Dependents Provision Act to reduce seven years to five.
Over the past few weeks, articles have been published in the media stating that the Bill is confined to a single woman and a single man living in a common law union for less than five years and does not address instances where parties of a legal marriage have physically separated for a long time and have developed common law unions with third parties.
“In the crafting of the amendment we addressed our minds to that, but the reason why the Bill is crafted in the manner in which it is, is because we would have had to deal with a different problem, one which the religious organisations would have raised their arms at; we would have, in a sense, been legitimising adultery and bigamy as we would have been condoning two unions,” Nandlall said.
According to Nandlall, unless a marriage is lawfully dissolved by a court, a man and woman still remain legally married and to ask the law to recognise another union in the face of an extant marriage would have serious implications related to the laws of bigamy and would have legitimised an adulterous relationship.
He noted that this piece of legislation must be looked at against the background of the recommencement of discussions and consultations on the no fault divorce.
