Stop the “Objection” Drama: Churches and film producers must apply Ghana’s marriage caveat law properly
The Akans in Ghana have a saying: “If an article is not properly placed in its rightful position, it will surely fall off and get lost.” That is why it is always right to apply what we learn properly.
Marriage is a critical institution in human society. It is also widely regarded as one of the few institutions ordained by God Himself, beginning with the creation of Eve as a perfect companion for Adam.
In Ghana, there are three main types of marriage: customary marriage, Mohammedan (Islamic) marriage, and ordinance marriage.
These are regulated by the Marriages Act, 1884–1985 (CAP 127), which sets out how each marriage type is contracted, the processes for registration, and the procedure for filing caveats where a person objects to an intended marriage.
This piece focuses on ordinance marriage, and particularly on how the caveat process is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented in some churches and in many Ghanaian movies.
What a caveat means in law
A caveat is a formal notice or warning lodged with the relevant authority to prevent a specific step from being taken until the person filing the caveat (the caveator) is notified and given an opportunity to be heard.
In the context of marriage, a caveat is a lawful mechanism for objecting to the issuance of a certificate that would authorise the marriage.
The problem in churches and movies
In many movies, we often see people, usually men, rise in church at the time the banns are being announced and shout, “OBJECTION!” as though that single outburst automatically stops the marriage process.
A more troubling practice is what happens in some churches today with specific emphasis on Marriages under the Marriage Officer’s Certificate: banns are announced without giving any guidance at all to persons who may have objections. Sometimes, the announcement is framed as if objections are not expected, or as though there is no lawful process to follow.
Even where the phrase, “speak now or forever keep silent,” is used, it is often delivered theatrically, without any indication of what the law actually requires. If the goal is compliance, should the announcement not at least point objectors to the proper channel, so they can take the correct steps quietly and lawfully?
What the law actually requires: Section 56 of CAP 127
To set the record straight, Section 56 of the Marriages Act, 1884–1985 (CAP 127) provides that a person who seeks to object to an intended marriage may do so before the issuance of the certificate.
Where the marriage is to be solemnised under the authority of a registrar’s certificate, an objector may, at any time before the certificate is issued:
-
Write the word “Forbidden” opposite the relevant entry in the marriage notice book; and
-
Append to the notice:
o the person’s name and place of abode, and
o the grounds on which the person claims to forbid the marriage.
Alternatively, where the marriage is to be solemnised under the authority of a marriage officer’s certificate after publication of banns, the objector may:
-
Give notice in writing to the person publishing the banns to forbid the marriage;
-
Append the objector’s name and place of abode; and
-
Specify the grounds on which the person claims to forbid the marriage.
Once a caveat is properly entered, the registrar or marriage officer must not issue the certificate unless the caveat is removed.
What happens after a caveat is entered?
Section 57 outlines the next steps:
-
Where a caveat is entered against the issuance of a registrar’s or marriage officer’s certificate, the registrar or marriage officer must, without delay, refer the matter to a Justice of the High Court.
-
If the Justice is satisfied that no legal grounds exist for forbidding the issuance of the certificate, the Justice shall remove the caveat in the prescribed manner without requiring any party to appear.
-
In any other case, the Justice shall summon:
- the parties to the intended marriage, and
- the person who entered the caveat,and require the caveator to show cause why the certificate should not be issued in due course. -
The matter shall be determined summarily, and the Justice may award compensation and costs to the party injured where it appears that the caveat was entered on insufficient grounds.
Removal of a caveat
Where the Justice finds that the caveat has no legal merit, the caveat is removed. Once removed, the registrar or marriage officer may issue the certificate in due course, and the marriage may proceed as if no caveat had been entered.
Why this matters
The marriage caveat procedure is not a trivial ritual. It is a serious legal safeguard, backed by a structured process and judicial oversight.
This is precisely why its mention should not be omitted, watered down, or converted into drama during the publication of banns.
Making the procedure known, and inviting persons who may object to follow the lawful route, is not an evil venture. It is a compliance step, a governance signal, and a practical way of upholding the law.
A Justification, not enough
It may be argued, correctly, that the bans had alternatively been published in the town or village where the couple reside thus sufficient notice to the public. That may be a reasonable explanation for why some church announcements are brief.
Still, churches should ensure members understand the effect of a caveat and the proper procedure for lodging one. Clarity prevents confusion, reduces disputes, and strengthens institutional credibility.
To movie producers
To movie producers: enough is enough. Ghanaian films have for years normalised foreign, legally inaccurate “objection” practices where a person appears from nowhere at the church banns announcement or even during vow exchange, shouts “Objection!”, and everything collapses into chaos.
Respectfully, that practice is wrong, alien, and inconsistent with Ghana’s marriage law. If films mirror society, then filmmakers have a responsibility to reflect the law accurately. Where your story involves a Ghanaian ordinance marriage, the caveat process must be depicted as what it truly is: a formal, written procedure with a clear legal route and judicial determination.
If we want the public, and especially the youth, to learn correctly, then both churches and filmmakers must do the right thing, the lawful way.
