20 November 2025
Ghanaian customary matrimony constitutes one of the most resilient and intricate matrimonial frameworks within African legal scholarship. Predating colonial legislative codifications and Western statutory matrimonial paradigms, this institution has historically functioned as the pivotal mechanism for legitimating familial configurations, delineating kinship obligations, forging interlineal alliances, and regulating patrimonial succession. Its persistence amid evolving geopolitical, socioeconomic, and transnational dynamics underscores its profound cultural tenacity and jurisprudential sophistication. Nevertheless, for numerous Ghanaians residing in the United States, the juridical status of this institution remains obfuscated, precipitating avoidable ramifications that might be mitigated through enhanced comprehension. When scrutinized through the prisms of Ghanaian jurisprudence, American conflicts-of-law principles, immigration statutes, and sociocultural migration modalities, a salient inference crystallizes: a Ghanaian customary matrimony validly consummated pursuant to Ghanaian law is typically acknowledged as a legitimate union within the United States for the preponderance of juridical objectives, save for a circumscribed exemption pertaining to immigration contexts involving proxy unions.
Central to Ghanaian customary matrimony is a juridical ritual frequently characterized as the proffering and reception of libations alongside ancillary customary artifacts. Modern Ghanaian juridical exegesis affirms that such matrimony necessitates the volitional assent of the principals and their lineages, with the bride’s kin’s acceptance of these elements constituting the consummatory act under customary jurisprudence. Enrollment under the Customary Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Act furnishes probative documentation of the union, yet it does not precondition its substantive validity. Ghanaian tribunals and doctrinal authorities have further accentuated that proxy participation—where a representative stands in for the bride or groom—is a long-standing and fully recognized modality of customary marriage. While its precise prevalence cannot be empirically quantified, the practice is deeply rooted in Ghana’s cultural and legal traditions and has consistently been upheld as a valid form of matrimonial solemnization, contingent upon the fulfillment of foundational requisites such as consent and familial participation.
The United States, counter to prevalent diasporic presuppositions, does not mandate a Eurocentric civil or ecclesiastical solemnization as the exclusive archetype of legitimate matrimony. Rather, American adjudicative and administrative entities predominantly invoke a “locus celebrationis” doctrine, predicated on comity and private international law tenets. Pursuant to this paradigm, a matrimony valid at its situs of solemnization—be it civil, confessional, customary, or indigenous—is ordinarily validated in the United States, barring contravention of a compelling public policy in the recognizing jurisdiction (e.g., specific polygamous arrangements or unions implicating nonage). This precept has been operationalized across diverse domains, with explicit U.S. Social Security directives corroborating that a Ghanaian customary matrimony valid under Ghanaian law would be deemed efficacious in a jurisdiction such as Maryland, thereby facilitating entitlement to spousal emoluments. In essence, if the union adheres to Ghanaian validity criteria, American juridical apparatuses will customarily construe it as an authentic and obligatory matrimony.
Accordingly, a valid Ghanaian customary matrimony engenders extensive juridical ramifications within the United States. It may substantiate marital status for federal and state fiscal declarations, ascertain qualification for Social Security spousal and survivorship entitlements, influence prerogatives under pension and occupational benefit regimes subject to U.S. governance, and designate the juridically acknowledged consort in testamentary and successional adjudications. Pursuant to state penal statutes, contracting a subsequent union while subsisting in a valid customary matrimony may render an individual susceptible to bigamy indictment. Analogously, fabricating one’s status as “unmarried” or “never wed” on fiscal submissions, immigration dossiers, credit solicitations, or other official instruments may constitute deceit or perjury, inasmuch as the antecedent union transcends mere cultural artifact—it is juridically perceptible under U.S. protocols for accrediting extraterritorial matrimonies.
The principal locus of disjuncture manifests in the specialized ambit of U.S. immigration jurisprudence. Federal immigration mandates and interpretative guidelines unequivocally stipulate that a proxy-solemnized matrimony—wherein one or both principals are absent from the rite—is not accredited for immigration privileges absent post-ceremonial consummation by the parties. This consummation imperative, anchored in statutory and regulatory frameworks and elucidated in administrative and Board of Immigration Appeals precedents, functions as a prophylactic against fraudulent machinations. Upon tendering persuasive substantiation of consummation—such as itinerant documentation, domiciliary co-residence, or progeny nativity—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may accredit the union for spousal visa petitions and ancillary entitlements. It merits emphasis that this stipulation is confined to immigration; it neither retroactively vitiates the matrimony under Ghanaian law nor its overarching validation under state conflicts principles.
An additional domain of substantial perplexity among Ghanaian expatriates pertains to the termination of customary matrimony. Under Ghanaian jurisprudence, a customary union does not ipso facto dissolve upon spousal estrangement, cessation of intercourse, or transnational relocation. The matrimony endures until duly abrogated via pertinent customary protocols—frequently entailing the emblematic restitution or tendering of libations or commensurate rituals as endorsed by the communal ethos—or through judicial dissolution pursuant to statutory mechanisms. Absent such measures, the principals remain juridically wed in Ghana, and given the U.S. adherence to the locus celebrationis doctrine, this marital condition may permeate American institutional treatments. This implies that a Ghanaian who subsequently solemnizes a civil union in the United States sans prior dissolution of the customary matrimony may unwittingly perpetrate bigamy under applicable state law. It further signifies that a forsaken consort in Ghana may preserve juridical successional prerogatives over the decedent’s estate domiciled in the United States.
These misconceptions are far from inconsequential; they can profoundly redirect existential trajectories. Numerous Ghanaians posit that their “traditional” union, unsolemnized in a tribunal or sanctuary, subsists extrinsic to formal juridical architectures. Others conjecture that Occidental institutions categorically repudiate African customary modalities, thereby emboldening declarations of singleton status in American juridical instruments. Still others construe protracted disunion as an informal annulment. Each such postulate diverges from the operational modalities of both Ghanaian and American jurisprudence. Ghanaian authorities substantiate that customary matrimony, even unregistered, constitutes a valid juridical entity with autonomous norms for inception and abrogation. American authorities corroborate that the normative protocol entails accrediting an extraterritorial union if valid at its origin, subject solely to delimited public policy derogations.
For Ghanaians domiciled in the United States, the trajectory toward juridical security and probity demands intentional lucidity and accountability. Individuals must exhibit candor vis-à-vis themselves and institutions concerning their matrimonial condition. Those in customary unions ought, where feasible, to preserve or procure evidentiary artifacts such as photographic records, familial affidavits, or registration dossiers delineating the union’s chronology and modality. Those aspiring to terminate such a union should solicit counsel on both Ghanaian and, where apposite, U.S. juridical protocols to ensure bilateral recognition of the dissolution. Those pursuing immigration entitlements predicated on customary or proxy unions must apprehend that supplementary consummation corroboration may be requisite and prepare commensurately.
In summation, the accreditation of Ghanaian customary matrimony within the U.S. juridical matrix transcends mere doctrinal technicality. It embodies a robust validation that African customary institutions retain efficacy and esteem extraterritorially. The United States, via its conflicts jurisprudence, concedes that matrimonies need not emulate Occidental ritualistic paradigms to bind efficaciously. Reciprocally, Ghanaian expatriates incur the onus to comprehend and venerate dual juridical regimes: the customary axioms that engendered their unions and the alien legal architectures now regulating their existences. Through erudite deliberation, veracious disclosure, and adherence to requisite dissolution protocols when warranted, they can fortify their prospects, insulate their lineages, and perpetuate the integrity of Ghanaian customary matrimony as a vibrant, supranational juridical phenomenon.
No Copyright – Serwaah Bonsu
You are free to use this work however you want. You may copy it, share it, print it, or repost it anywhere.
No permission is needed.
Source: newsghana.com.gh
