Clause 14(3),Of Act 560: The Lawmakers’ Debate (2)

Cultural Dynamics

Beyond legal definitions and developmental concerns were Ghana’s deep-rooted cultural practices.

Some MPs argued that child marriage was already widespread in various communities and that the law should reflect and regulate this reality rather than pretend it didn’t exist.

Mr F.W.K. Blay, then MP for Ellembelle, shared a striking example:

“Most of the kids in my constituency, particularly the girls around 14 and 16, many of them are out of school and already involved in one form of marriage or the other.”

For Blay and others, Clause 14(3) wasn’t about encouraging early marriage but about acknowledging a practice that was already happening, with or without legal approval. They saw the clause as a practical tool to bring these unions under the law’s supervision.

The cultural dynamic presented lawmakers with a delicate balance—how to affirm Ghana’s legal commitment to child rights while remaining sensitive to the lived realities of its diverse communities.

Public Opinion

Public sentiment also shaped the contours of the debate. While Parliament held the legal authority, MPs were keenly aware that they were representing the views of their constituents.

In support of removing the clause, some MPs emphasised that the general public did not believe children aged 16 were mature enough for marriage.

Mr E.K. Fosu, representing Asikuma/Odoben/Brakwa, cited conversations with his constituents, noting overwhelming opposition to Clause 14(3). He stated:

“…I have interacted with a lot of my constituents on this particular clause 14(3), and in about 99 per cent of the case, what they told me was, in our language, wo nsoo aware.” (Meaning they are not ready to marry)

Fosu's comments reflected a broader public concern that legalising marriage at 16, even with parental consent, would undermine efforts to protect children and ensure their full development before entering into lifelong commitments.

Mr M.A. Seidu, a then Minister of State, also conducted a survey involving girls between the ages of 16 and 18 the demographic most directly affected by the clause.

According to his findings, a significant portion of these young women supported the option to marry before 18.

Seidu’s argument was grounded in the belief that the very group the law sought to protect should have a say in determining its limits.

Age of Sexual Consent

Ghana’s Criminal Code allowed young people to legally consent to sex at 16, yet the proposed Children’s Act set the minimum marriage age at 18. For some, this created an illogical and confusing double standard.

Mr C.O. Nyanor, then MP for Upper Denkyira, stated that

“If the couple is allowed to have sex… why do we at the same time also make a law that you cannot marry and look after your child?”

For supporters of Clause 14(3), it seemed unfair to allow a 16-year-old to legally engage in sex potentially leading to pregnancy but deny them the legal right to marry and support their child in a stable environment.

However, others like Mr A.S.K. Bagbin saw this as precisely why marriage should be treated differently.

He argued that sexual consent does not equate to readiness for the legal, emotional, and financial obligations of marriage.

To Bagbin, the solution was not to harmonise the two ages by lowering the marriage threshold but rather to strengthen legal protections for children.

For them, aligning sexual consent and marriage at 16 would blur the distinction between physical capability and emotional readiness, jeopardising the very protections the Children’s Act was meant to guarantee.

This debate, which echoed through the corridors of Parliament more than two decades ago, still resonates today.

The same questions that dominated the legislative floor in 1998 about maturity, protection, legal coherence, and the rights of children are once again at the forefront of national reflection.

During the recent vetting of judicial nominees, Justices Sir Dennis Adjei and Philip Bright Mensah were asked about the gap between the age of consent and the legal age for marriage.

Their responses brought renewed attention to this long-standing issue, suggesting that the matter is far from settled.

Both judges acknowledged that the inconsistency between permitting sex at 16 but requiring marriage at 18 raises complex questions about legal coherence and child welfare.

Whiles one wants the law changed the other wants the status quo to remain as it is in the law.

In today’s Ghana, where conversations around child protection, gender equity, and youth development have evolved significantly, the core question remains: does the current legal framework still serve Ghana’s children in today’s contemporary context? Or is it time for a review?

The writer is the
Executive Director, Child Rights International