A: Introduction
The
past few months have put women’s rights issues at the forefront of news
bulletins in both traditional and social media. In July, the legendary Daddy
Lumba died. His death provoked a spontaneous singing competition nationwide.
People from all walks of life displayed their prowess in singing Lumba’s
proverbs-laden songs that native Twi speakers ordinarily fumble to unpack. “Theresa,”
“Sika asԑm,” “Yԑn ne wo sere kwa” (a personal favourite) topped music charts
worldwide.
Members
of Parliament (MPs) were not left out of the sing-a-thon. They defied
Parliamentary decorum and sung their hearts out in any accent possible. It was
surreal. But what the MPs did not know was that, their failure to pass a law on
how couples’ properties must be shared when there is divorce, or when a spouse
dies, was going to kick up a national conversation in the aftermath of Lumba’s
death.
This
article discusses the lip service that has been paid promotion of women’s
rights in Ghana while the reality paints a bleak picture. It highlights the
fact that some women have braved the odds and taken the bold step to be in
governance. But such bravery have usually met with harassment and the women are
eventually hounded out, leaving small numbers of women in politics and public
office while patriarchy soars. Yes, an Affirmative Action law has been passed
but who even remembers that it exist? The article contends that the law that
Parliament needs to pass to regulate how spouses should share their jointly
acquired property when there is divorce or death (whichever occurs first) has
been 32 long years in coming, and still counting.
The
article contends further that in the absence of a Property Rights of Spouses
law, Ghanaian women will continue to bear the brunt of men who sap their youth
in all manner of relationships - Ordinance marriage, customary marriage, ‘bigamous’
marriage, cohabitation, common law marriage, marriage-by-childbirth and so
forth. The men eventually leave the women to grow and die in embarrassment and,
worst still, penury.
B: Women’s rights, Chinese
style!
Beijing has become synonymous with women’s empowerment. It was in that beautiful Chinese city that the 4th UN World Conference on Women was held in 1995. 2025 marks 30 years since the event and another one held has been held again in China. The conference was attended by President John Mahama. The Chinese Ambassador to Ghana, Mr. Tong Defa issued a press statement detailing the strides China has made in its efforts at promoting women’s rights and gender equality. Mr. Tong added that the governments of China and Ghana are both committed to narrowing the gender gap, promoting gender equality and the all-round development of women. One could not help but admire – and, candidly speaking, envy - China for its dizzying statistics on women’s growth and empowerment. Recounting the impressive strides China has made, Mr. Tong wrote as follows:
·
In the political sphere, the proportion of
women among delegates to the 14th National People's Congress rose to 26.5%,
increased by 1.6% compared to the previous Session, while women representatives
to county and township people's congresses accounted for 31.6% and 32.4%
respectively.
·
In the institutional sector, Law of the
People's Republic of China on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Women,
recently revised in 2022, stipulates that women enjoy equal rights with men in
all aspects of political, economic, cultural, social, and family life.
·
In the medical field, the average life
expectancy of women has exceeded 80 years old, and the maternal mortality rate
has dropped to 14.3 per 100,000 live births.
·
In the educational sphere, the proportion of
female university students has increased to 49.9%, and the number of female
scientific researchers has reached 45.8%.
·
In the economic field, China has won the largest
poverty alleviation campaign in human history, with 690 million women
simultaneously moving towards a moderately prosperous society.
·
In the employment sector, the female labour
force participation rate is 63.7%, far exceeding the international average of
47.3%. Women work in finance and the internet, accounting for 57.7% and 55% of
these sectors, respectively.[1]
The Ambassador, Mr. Tong, was exceedingly gracious as he sought to create a balanced report. He cited Ghana’s achievements in women’s empowerment as follows:
o
H.E. Naana Jane Opoku-Agyemang is the first
female Vice President of Ghana. Her success marks a watershed moment for
women's political participation in Ghana, with women's leadership increasingly
recognized.
o
Launch of the Affirmative Action (Gender
Equity) Act ushering in a new chapter in Ghana's commitment to promoting gender
equality, inclusive governance, and social transformation.
o
At the 2024 Women's Africa Cup of Nations,
the Black Queens won the third place. Two players of the National Team were
selected into the best team of the tournament.
o
In September, three female students from the
University of Ghana's Graduate School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences won the
championship in the GC69 Female Nuclear Competition organized by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Like,
seriously, Mr. Ambassador? Was this the best you could do for us? But to be
fair to the gentleman; it is not a foreign ambassador’s duty to tell our story
to the world. We need to tell it ourselves. So, here we go. This is OUR story:
i.
Women’s representation in Parliament is …
ii.
Women MCEs and DCEs is …
iii.
Women on Government Boards is …
Let
us fill in the statistics and see how we measure up to Mr. Tong’s.
Just
a few days ago, a Zimbabwean lawyer friend of mine on LinkedIn, Edith Utete,
announced that she had been appointed as Deputy Board chair of an insurance
company. She posted a newspaper article on the appointments to the board. It
had pictures of all the six (6) board members; 5 women and 1 man. Yes, you read
right. 5 women and 1 man. I was in awe. In Ghana, the converse is our default
setting; 5 men to 1 woman. Yet, Ghana occupied the front seat at Beijing ’95
and Beijing @ 30 ’2025.
While
the President was in China celebrating Ghana’s gains in women’s empowerment by
the above extraordinary statistics given by Mr. Tong, the Minister of Education
was screaming his lungs out – and in the process, losing the shine on his head
– swearing that no long natural hair will be permitted in public schools in his
lifetime. Before one could inquire of the Minister whether he was a beneficiary
of the burgeoning multi-million dollar wig industry that has turned the black
race into the only race whose men wear their natural hair and the women wear wigs
depicting hair from other races, someone blurted: Young girls’ hair length will
not settle ‘double salary’ saga. Most apt.
C: Abena, keep your head up!
The
9th Parliament of the Fourth Republic has turned out to be one with
most unusual features. The first is the extremely uneven majority vs. minority
sides (185 to 84). The second is the percentage of female MPs being 14.2%. The
third is a refreshing piece of news; the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of
Parliament is chaired by a brilliant, young-but-experienced female MP for Atiwa
East in the Eastern Region, and a chartered accountant, the Hon. Mrs. Abena
Osei-Asare.
Since
the PAC started its public sittings, it has been heart-warming to see such an
important committee being ably chaired and steered by Hon. Osei-Asare. The
camaraderie among the PAC heads is commendable. It holds the torch to other committees.
As citizens were savouring the palatable proceedings from the PAC, a first
time, independent MP had other ideas. Apparently, the hen’s majestic dance
moves were unappealing to the hawk. Thus, the hawk decided to strike any way.
And in great style.
The
MP reportedly filed a petition with the Speaker’s Office, entreating good old
Hon. Bagbin to remove Hon. Osei-Asare as chairperson of the PAC! Her crime? She
was a Deputy Minister in the previous NPP Government. As such, she cannot be
the person scrutinizing public accounts of the previous regime for fear of
conflict of interest, or words to that effect. As goes the fashion these days, the
alleged petition was splashed on social media, ostensibly for maximum effect. As
was expected, ‘netizens’ saw through it and left it as it came. The Speaker has
not spoken a word of it; most likely he never will. What is surprising is that,
Hon. Osei-Asare’s colleague MPs remained quiet while she was being pummeled for
no reason other than doing a fantastic job as the PAC chair and getting
applauded for it. We are yet to see MPs hit their butts on the ground for her.
We are yet to see them stage a ‘walk out’ in solidarity with her. We are yet to
witness a Press conference called to speak against her mistreatment. After all,
similar efforts have been deployed for persons who are not MPs.
It
was with a heavy heart that I read recently that Hon. Osei-Asare had personally
defended herself against her critics concerning her work as PAC chair. Hon., do
not fall into that pit. Explaining yourself to those who are seeking to
dethrone you minimizes your impact whiles validating and reinforcing their perjured
narratives. Focus on the great job you are doing. Ghanaians are watching and
appreciating your work. If you were doing badly, no one would have bothered
about you. Those seeking to perpetuate patriarchal patterns can do their worst.
Keep your head up. Keep your voice up. The nation is behind you!
The
pattern of harassing, bullying and stampeding promising female MPs into their
early exit from Parliament is becoming one too many. Let us not forget the case
of Hon. Sarah Adwoa Safo. By all accounts, the young lady lawyer was being
groomed into a seasoned legislator and politician. Similar to Abena, Adwoa’s
exit started with petitions about her absence from Parliament, when evidence
showed that many others were guilty of the same ‘offence.’ Before we knew it,
she had been managed out of Government, out of Parliamentary leadership and out
of Parliament altogether. Eventually, those who managed her out were themselves
served with the same poisoned chalice.
Perhaps,
if we had seen through the unwritten-but-ultimate-agenda of ridding Parliament
of female representation during the Adwoa Safo saga and spoken against it, she
might still be in Parliament. We would have benefitted from her contribution as
a former Minister for Gender & Social Protection, among others, and a
former Parliamentary leader. She would have had less time on her hands to do
door-to-door death announcement.
D: Courts ‘making laws’
while Parliament sleeps?
Sometime
in 2021, I wrote an article titled “From whence cometh our help? The dilemma women
face after their marriages are nullified.”[2] In it, I discussed the
creeping phenomenon whereby old men in monogamous marriages (marriage under the
Ordinance which does not permit the man to take any additional wife or wives)
present themselves as unmarried or divorced and marry young Ghanaian women. And
when many years down the line, the husband becomes physically and fiscally weak
and can no longer sustain the marriage, the husband uses his earlier marriage
under the Ordinance to another woman as a ground to nullify the second
marriage.
In
the article, I explained that generally, the courts apply the ‘jurisprudence of
equity’ principle in deciding how to distribute jointly-acquired property between
spouses when there is divorce. This is the position when the parties end their
regularly contracted marriage by divorce. However, the courts have held that in
situations where the marriage is declared a nullity, a spouse who claims any
matrimonial property or any part of it must provide evidence to show that he or
she made a substantial contribution towards the purchase of the property before
that spouse would be given any part of the property acquired during the
impugned marriage. This position adopted by the courts often proves problematic
and inequitable.
Furthermore,
I discussed two cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to
demonstrate how unfair the “substantial contribution” principle adopted for distribution
of property acquired under a nullified marriage could be to a spouse, mostly
the wife. The first was the Supreme Court case of Owuo v Owuo.[3] The husband married the
wife under customary law in 1989. They lived together as man and wife for a period
of 10 years. In 1999, they married under the Ordinance in Tema. Therefore,
their potentially polygamous marriage under customary law had been converted into
a monogamous marriage under the Ordnance.
The
husband went on retirement after working for a considerable number of years with
Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority. They later moved into their own house at
Community 16, Lashibi. Cracks soon appeared in the marriage and so, the wife
filed a petition for divorce at the High Court. The wife asked the court to
dissolve the marriage, give her half of the two plots of land with a house on
it at Lashibi as a joint owner, an Audi car and the lump sum of GH¢100,000.
The
High Court gave judgment in favour of the husband. The judge found that the
marriage was a nullity because the husband was married to one Mrs. Beatrice Owuo
at the time he purportedly married Mrs. Theresa Owuo, and therefore, the
husband lacked the capacity to contract any such marriage with Theresa Owuo.
The judge further said that the wife could not claim joint ownership of the
Lashibi property since the wife had failed to prove that she made a substantial
contribution towards its acquisition. The
wife
was unhappy with the judgment so she appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The
Court of Appeal, on the other hand, gave judgment in favour of the wife.
Dordzie (Mrs.), JA (as she was then known) read the judgment as follows:
“Having
placed the petitioner in the position of a wife who, by the evidence, had given
the services of a wife for twenty years, I consider half share of the landed
property acquired during the relationship an appropriate compensation to the
petitioner. I would, in the circumstances, order that the property described as
plots No. 68 & 69, Community 16, Lashibi, be valued and half of the value
paid to her in cash as compensation. I also order that the respondent pays the
cost of this litigation including solicitor’s fees of the petitioner.’’
The
Court of Appeal concluded that, it would be unjust to allow the husband to benefit
from his own wrong doing. The husband was not satisfied with the Court of
Appeal’s judgment giving half of their properties to his wife so he appealed to
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also gave judgment in favour of the wife
but for a different reason. The Supreme Court stated that where a marriage is
declared a nullity, the wife who is claiming part of the property acquired
during the marriage must “prove with sufficient particularity that she made
substantial contribution towards the acquisition of the property.” The Supreme
Court added that the record supported the conclusion that the wife, Mrs. Owuo, had
made substantial contribution and, therefore, the Supreme Court gave her half
the value of the property.
It
is interesting to observe that, though the Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court came to the same conclusion that the wife must be given half of the
property, the courts gave different reasons for arriving at their conclusions.
While the Court of Appeal gave
judgment
for the wife because she had lived as a wife with the husband and performed
wifely duties to him for twenty years, the Supreme Court relied upon the
“substantial contribution” test to give judgment in favour of the wife. In my
considered view, the Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable as it is
purposive in its tenets and accords with equity, fairness and public policy.
The
second case discussed was Frimpong v Addo.[4] In this case, the husband (petitioner)
was married to one E.A.B. under the Ordinance on 29th April, 2004 at the Accra
Metropolitan Assembly. The husband was a driver who lived in London. Sometime
in 2011, the husband met and fell in love with another woman, that is,
the
wife (respondent) and married her under customary law in January, 2012 in
Ghana. In September the same year, the customary marriage was converted into an
Ordinance marriage at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, despite the fact that
the husband was already married to E.A.B. also under the Ordinance.
After
the marriage, the husband and new wife lived at Sowutuom Chop Bar in Accra
before moving to Ablekuma NIC, Accra. They had one child. According to the
husband, he provided all the necessaries of life for the wife and the child of
the marriage. He bought a house at Ablekuma NIC with proceeds of goods sent by his
first wife and moved the new wife and the child into that house. Since the
husband was on retirement, he proposed to the wife to rent out the house and
give some of the proceeds to her to start a trade but she refused to move for
the house to be sold. The wife rather lodged a complaint at the Ablekuma Police
Station that the husband wanted to move her out. He added that the wife and her
mother after selling the items sent down by his first wife, spent the money. He
also alleged that the wife’s brother whom he bought a car for, sold it and kept
the proceeds while his father-in-law for whom he also bought a car only paid
back GH¢1,000. He added that he had not had any sex with the new wife since the
birth of their child. He still lived with his lawful wife in London.
According
to the wife, she was not aware that her husband was already married. She said
the husband had refused to maintain the child of the marriage since 2017. She
added that she filed for divorce against him earlier but same could not be
served because of the difficulty in ascertaining the husband’s address as he had
stopped speaking with her. She said that the husband fraudulently
misrepresented to her before and during the marriage that he was single and
that she and her family members consented to the marriage relying on his
misrepresentations and had a child with him and they lived together as husband
and wife.
The
wife added that the husband acquired the matrimonial home for them to live in
and so when he forcibly told her to move into rented premises for the said home
to be sold and she refused, he lodged a complaint at the Police Station that
she had taken over his house. According to the wife, the husband had become
impotent and she cross petitioned for divorce, compensation and lump sum financial
settlement of GH¢50,000.00, maintenance of the child, and so forth.
The
Circuit Court judge declared the marriage a nullity, gave custody of the child
to the wife, plus 50% of the value of the matrimonial home and an amount of
GH¢50,000 as compensation. The husband was also ordered to pay the school fees and
hospital bills of the child and to pay a monthly maintenance of GH¢400.00. This
is how the judge excellently analyzed the case:
“Through
all this the petitioner lied about his marital status and enjoyed the benefits
until the relationship fell on rocks and then he pulled out his already
subsisting marriage as a “trump card.” If the petitioner did not know that the
marriage was a nullity, how then can one explain the urgency and audacity with
which he tried to remove the respondent from the marital home? His evidence on the
matter, as usual, was very inconsistent and erratic. First, he said he was
ejecting the respondent because he had built the matrimonial home from proceeds
of goods sent by his first wife and now that he is on pension he proposed that
the house be rented out and yet in another breath he says the respondent has
refused to move out of the house into an apartment for the house to be sold. He
went as far as reporting to the police to have respondent ejected from the
house but which effort failed. What gave the petitioner courage to pursue his
agenda to eject the respondent from the house was his trump card, a void marriage
with respondent and once the marriage was void the respondent had lost out and
should, therefore, be thrown out of the matrimonial home. However, this court is
of the opinion that the respondent should not be cheated out. She and the
daughter deserve better. The Petitioner’s behavior is reprehensible. He who
comes to equity must come with clean hands. Petitioner cannot behave in such a
diabolical manner, and then force respondent out of the matrimonial home and
leave her high and dry; that will fly in the face of all human rights principles
and tenets that human beings have agreed to abide by; principles of fairness,
equity, justice and good conscience. Because
of
the fraudulent misrepresentation by petitioner, the respondent deserves an
equal share in the matrimonial home as compensation. It is for this reason that
in spite of the fact that the marriage is a nullity, this court will still apply
the rules in Mensah v Mensah. The
court adopts the decision above and declares house number 102 Ablekuma NIC, …
the joint property of both parties with a fifty percent share for each party.
In addition, this court also awards a further lump sum of GH¢50,000 to respondent
against petitioner.”
The
husband found the above judgment of the Circuit Court unacceptable so he
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal also declared the marriage
a nullity but concluded, rather strangely in my view, that as the wife had not
shown any evidence that she contributed substantially towards the acquisition of
the matrimonial property, the Circuit Court should not have declared the house
as joint property. The Court of Appeal set aside the award of half of the
matrimonial home to the wife and gave her only GH¢50,000 plus custody of the
child. It was unfortunate that the Court of Appeal chose to tread the “substantial
contribution” path beaten by the Supreme Court in Owuo v Owuo,[5] thereby inflicting substantial
miscarriage of justice on the wife.
It
seems the courts have taken over Parliament’s constitutional duty to pass a law
to regulate spousal property rights in Ghana. Article 22 of the Constitution
provides that when a person dies, his spouse (wife or husband) will be given a
reasonable part of the dead spouse’s estate whether or not the dead spouse left
a will. Additionally, spouses are to have equal rights to enjoy any property
that they jointly acquire during their marriage. In the event of divorce, the
couple are to share any property they acquired together equitably. The
Constitution specifically mandated Parliament to pass a law to regulate the
property rights of spouses as soon as practicable after the Constitution became
operational.[6]
It has been 32 long years and there is no sign of a Property Rights of Spouses
law.
A
Property Rights of Spouses law would have addressed issues such as who
qualifies
as
a ‘spouse’ under the law, the concept of ‘cohabitation,’ the introduction of marital property agreements (also known as “prenuptial
agreements” in some jurisdictions), the need for a spouse to obtain the other’s
consent before entering into any
transaction that relates to a joint property of the spouses, and so on. The law
would have also addressed other matters concerning spouses’ equal access to
jointly acquired property and equitable distribution of property after divorce.
On this last point, the Supreme Court appears to savour its freedom to
‘legislate’ with relish. For instance, in March this year, the Supreme Court gave
judgment in a case called Ayishetu Abdul Kadiri v Abdul Dwamenah.[7] The Court formulated thirteen (13) ‘discernible
principles’ for sharing marital property when there is divorce. According to
the Court, the list was not exhaustive.
Just
four months later in July, 2025, the Supreme Court gave another judgment in the
case of Abena Pokua v Yaw Kwakye.[8]
Without making any reference to the earlier Ayishetu Abdul Kadiri case, the
Supreme Court
panel in the latter case went ahead to formulate its own ‘position of the law’ for
dealing with the same matter of sharing marital property when there is divorce.
In the process, four (4) parameters were set. Interestingly, both cases
concerned sharing of marital property after divorce in a polygamous marriage. Thus,
in a space of four months, the Supreme Court set down seventeen (17) ‘principles’
and ‘positions’ for sharing marital property when there is divorce. How are
trial and other appellate courts that are bound to follow the decisions of the
Supreme Court expected to do so in these changing scenes of the law? Meanwhile,
Parliament that has the constitutional duty to make the law on sharing of
marital property on death or divorce is sleeping on the job. Spousal property
rights is truly in a state of flux.
E: The Daddy Lumba factor
Enter
the sad news of Daddy Lumba’s passing and matters arising. According to media
reports, the late Daddy Lumba (real name is Charles Kwadwo Fosu) died survived
by a wife of an Ordinance marriage of over 30 years. The wife and children are
reportedly resident in Germany. By all accounts, the man never divorced his wife
in Germany. As at the time of his death, he had reportedly been cohabiting with
another woman in Ghana (a younger one, of course) and they have about 5
children or so. By the same accounts, the man lived together with the young lady
in Ghana under the same roof, bore children together, referred to her as his
wife in interviews and carried on as any married couple would do for over 17
years.
Unlike
the man in the case of Frimpong v Addo,[9] Daddy Lumba did not file a
petition to divorce the young lady. Daddy Lumba died. But the facts are similar
in many respects. Now, the vexed issue is who has the legal right to be
recognized as Daddy Lumba’s widow? Is it the Ordinance wife resident in Germany
or the cohabitee who lived with him in Ghana, or both? The answer to this
question could have been found in a Property Rights of Spouses law if
Parliament had passed one as it has been mandated to do under the Constitution,
1992. In the absence of such a law, the women have been left to battle it out
between themselves to resolve the issue, while their ‘husband’ remains frozen
in the morgue. Their respective positions have generated a huge debate both on
and offline.
Indeed,
a Property Rights of Spouses Bill was laid before Parliament for the first time
in 2009. The Bill was not passed and it lapsed. Then came another Property Rights
of Spouses Bill in 2013. As noted earlier, this second Bill contained many
useful provisions such as who qualifies as a ‘spouse,’ the concept of cohabitation,
and so on. Sadly, the bill languished in Parliament while the problems it
sought to redress continued to plague Ghanaian women. Needless to say, that
bill also lapsed at the end of the tenure of that Parliament. Since then, the
bill has not been laid before the House again!
It
is submitted that if MPs meant the outpouring of grief they showed when Daddy
Lumba died, the best they can do to honour his memory is to pass a Property
Rights of Spouses Bill. In that case, Ghanaian women who find themselves in meretricious
relationships will suffer no more. Men will not take undue advantage of women,
whether by design or by fate. Most importantly, it will not be left to the
Supreme Court to step in and make ‘laws’ to regulate the property and widowhood
rites of such ‘couples’ when there is death or divorce.
F: Conclusion
Ghana
has paid lip service to women’s rights for far too long. We have made some
strides but a lot more have been left undone. Women’s participation in politics
and governance must be promoted and encouraged, not thwarted and derailed. It
is unfortunate that even where there is a constitutional obligation on Parliament
to act, the House has sat on its hands while women suffer. Divorce or death of
a spouse constitutes about the greatest challenge to women’s economic and
property rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, 1992. Unless Parliament
does the needful and pass a Property Rights of Spouses Bill, women who find
themselves in meretricious relationships will always be the biggest losers.
[1]
Source: “Chinese Ambassador to Ghana Tong Defa Publishes a Signed
Article on Ghanaian Media” https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zwbd/202510/t20251013_11731267.html
(accessed on 18th October, 2025)
[2] F.
S. Boateng, PERSPECTIVES (Vol. 1)
(2022) p. 219-228
[3] Civil
Appeal No. J4/20/2017 judgment dated 6th December, 2017, SC
[4] Civil
Appeal No. H1/73/2020 judgment dated 18th June, 2020, CA
[5]
Above
[6]
See: F. S. Boateng, PERSPECTIVES
(Vol. 1) (2022) “The Property Rights of Spouses in Ghana: Why the Eighth
Parliament should bite the bullet and pass a bill to regulate it” p. 207-218
[7] Civil Appeal No. J4/36/ 2024 judgment dated
12th March, 2025, SC
[8] Civil Appeal No.
J4/17/ 2025 judgment dated 9th July, 2025, SC
[9] Civil
Appeal No. H1/73/2020 judgment dated 18th June, 2020, CA
