Namibia’s family law took a new turn on 3 June.
The Dissolution of Marriages Act of 2024 came into effect, abolishing the old fault-based system and establishing a single reason for ending a civil marriage: irretrievable breakdown.
A spouse no longer needs to prove adultery, cruelty, malicious desertion, mental illness or habitual criminality to be released from a marriage.
As judge president Petrus Damaseb explained in his guidance notes, the focus has shifted from determining who is to blame to determining whether the marriage has disintegrated beyond realistic repair.
THE LONGER STORY
To understand this moment, we must consider it to be the latest chapter in Namibia’s long-running story of dignity and equality at home.
The Married Persons Equality Act of 1996 repealed the legal fiction of the husband as “head of the household”, abolished marital power, and made spouses equal partners and guardians for their children.
This was directly derived from our Constitution, which declares human dignity inviolable in Article 8 and guarantees equality before the law and freedom from gender discrimination in Article 10.
This commitment has been carried forward through successive national gender policies. The new divorce law follows that trajectory, attempting to make the law more humane, accessible and equal.
CASE FOR REFORM
There is a lot of bickering in many quarters about this new divorce law.
The benefits are real and should not be overlooked. The previous regime required all divorces to be heard only in the High Courts of Windhoek and Oshakati, putting justice out of reach for many Namibians, particularly the rural poor.
By empowering magistrate and regional courts, the act brings the courtroom closer to ordinary citizens while dramatically lowering costs.
The reform also saves spouses from the drama of publicly accusing one another of wrongdoing just to part ways.
For those who are trapped in abusive or truly dead marriages, this is a mercy and a vindication of dignity.
THE CONCERNS WE MUST NAME
However, to be honest, we must also name our concerns.
When the law stops asking who broke the covenant, there is a risk that society will also stop asking.
A faster, simpler and less hostile process is humane, but it can also make divorce feel like a first response to everyday marital stress rather than a last resort after all other attempts at reconciliation have failed.
Critics are concerned that under a pure no-fault framework, infidelity, neglect and abuse will become legally invisible.
In a country where more than 90% of citizens identify as Christian, many will rightly question the sanctity of marriage and what the ease of dissolution means for children and family stability.
Is divorce a clearance sale?
MERCY, SANCTITY HELD TOGETHER
These are complementary, not opposing, truths.
Scripture regards marriage as a sacred covenant but it also recognises that humans must be protected from cruelty and irreparable harm.
The law’s purpose is not to bind people to suffering, nor is it to teach us that commitment is disposable.
The act wisely preserves a reconciliation window: if a spouse opposes divorce on the grounds of possible reconciliation, the court may postpone proceedings for up to three months, if no harm is threatened to the spouse or children.
It also refuses to finalise any divorce until the children’s welfare (custody and maintenance) is addressed first.
BEYOND THE LAW
Strong families cannot be built solely based on law. That work belonged to all of us.
We should invest in premarital counselling so that couples can enter marriage with clear eyes.
We should expand faith-based and community mediation, family counselling services, and conflict-resolution education so that the first step in a troubled marriage is to seek help, not to leave.
Churches and elders should resume their traditional role as mentors to young couples.
And we must be unwavering in our commitment to protecting victims of domestic violence, because no covenant requires anyone to endure abuse.
A constructive path forward.
Namibia has chosen, correctly, to protect legal dignity and equality.
Let us now make a deliberate decision to honour marriage as a sacred and socially vital institution.
The measure of this reform will not be how easily marriages can be ended but how seriously – as a society of faith and law – we continue to work to keep them intact.
* Michael Conteh is a publicly engaged scholar and gender expert. He can be reached at linsobob@gmail.com
