Notes
ANG (Archives nationales du Gabon), Register #91, Répertoires des collections de Registres divers, Tribunal indigène du 1er degré. Registres des Audiences publiques conciliation, commune de Libreville, Case #91, Bernard Koula versus Michel Ondo, April 9, 1956.
According to Fang customary law, “in the state of concubinage, the woman is free to make use of herself as she likes”. Letter #442, Chef p.i. du Département de l’Estuaire, Yves Saint-Alary to the Governor of Gabon, August 25, 1942.
In her research on marriage in colonial Niger, Barbara Cooper argues that most marital conflict in African families are settled in “local fora” and not in courts (Cooper 1997:18).
In early twentieth century Assante, Allman & Tashjian (2000: xxxviii) argue that women, “negotiated [a] shifting customary terrain at particular historical moments, by defending older formulations of custom in court or demanding new ones”. For other examples of this literature see: Wright (1982), Byfield (2000), Hawkins (2002), Shadle (1999, 2003), Roberts (1991, 2005).
Éboué (1942: 20) argued that African judges should decide such cases: “The first consists in allowing questions of state of persons–marriage, divorce, adultery, attribution of natural children, inheritance–to be settled in the first instance by native judges alone. They can do this much better than us. We have generally brought about a certain weakness in the settling of such matters, especially in that which concerns adultery and divorce. On the pretext that the woman was not free enough before marriage, with our repugnance to punish adultery and our ease in pronouncing divorce, we have given her a license in marriage that is completely excessive. Native judges, officially reinvested with civil competence, will put all of this into order and they will teach us to not inculcate them with our conceptions, but to simply control the correct application of theirs, as they have evolved, notably under the influence of Christian law.”
At some point the governor wanted to have separate courts by ethnic group, but the attorney general warned against this, citing the revolts that occurred in Nigeria in 1925-28 when they tried to do the same thing. Governor General Bayardelle cautioned administrators to ensure that, “customary judges are frequently and attentively controlled”. ANG, Microfilm 51-MI-65-2, Bulletin de Renseignements politiques, septembre 1946.
CAOM (Centre des Archives d’Outre-Mer, Aix-en-Provence), aef/ggaef/5D56, Documentation sur le mariage africain en AEF, 10 juillet 1950.
In a letter to all the governors of FEA colonies Bayardelle suggested that divorces only be granted in cases of sterility, congenital malformation, incurable disease, brutal violence, and traditional unpardonable insults. Further dismissing the need to consult with native assessors, Bayardelle closed the letter asking the governors to respond right away to his recommendations, without the need to consult with “native collaborators”. CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, Circulaire du GG de l’AEF à Messieurs les Gouverneurs Chefs de Territoire, Libreville, Bangui, Fort-Lamy, et Brazzaville, 5 février 1946.
CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, Letter 391, Lettre du GG de l’AEF à Messieurs les Chefs des territoires Gabon, Moyen-Congo, Oubangui-Chari, 6 juillet 1948.
CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, Letter 391, Lettre du GG de l’AEF à Messieurs les Chefs des territoires Gabon, Moyen Congo, Oubangui-Chari, 6 juillet 1948.
CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, Circulaire du GG de l’AEF à Messieurs les Gouverneurs Chefs des territoires, Libreville, Bangui, Fort-Lamy, et Brazzaville, 5 février 1946.
ANG, 146, Letter 418, Lettre de l’Administrateur des Colonies, H. Tastevin, Chef de la circonscription de l’Estuaire à Monsieur le Chef de la subdivision de Libreville, 27 juin 1944.
The commander urged administrators to maintain a frequent presence in the halls where chiefs were presiding over conciliation cases since their presence would increase the authority of the chiefs in relation to litigants. In particular, the commander urged that administrators watch over and keep control over two African men identified as Corporal Guimbi and the interpreter Mathurin who often criticized decisions settled upon by the assessors. ANG, 146, Letter 418, lettre de l’Administrateur des Colonies, H. Tastevin, Chef de la circonscription de l’Estuaire à Monsieur le Chef de la subdivision de Libreville, 27 juin 1944.
In a 1939 political report, the head of the Estuary region complained about the number of palavers he had to deal with. Though colonial administrators directed people towards conciliation hearings, parties in disputes were constantly challenging the judgments of chiefs in conciliation court and coming to him to resolve. He argued that they need to reestablish a court with a European intermediary. ANG, Microfilm Reel 51-MI-75, Rapport politique du deuxième semestre de l’Estuaire 1939.
ANG, 164, Audience du 29 janvier 1943, doléances des Chefferies, communes et subdivision, 29 janvier 1943.
ANG, Register #112, Afrique équatoriale française, région de l’estuaire, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier, année 1950 du 4 novembre 1950 au 1er mai 1955.
The category of cases heard by year is as follows: 1950: 0 wife kidnapping, 3 adultery, 0 abandonment, 0 bridewealth, 0 levirate, 1 divorce, 0 compensation, 0 marriage agreement; 1951: 5 wife kidnapping, 7 adultery, 7 abandonment, 7 bridewealth, 3 levirate, 0 divorce, 1 compensation, 0 marriage agreement; 1952: 5 wife kidnapping, 4 adultery, 5 abandonment, 2 bridewealth, 2 levirate, 1 divorce, 1 compensation, 0 marriage agreement; 1953: 11 wife kidnapping, 4 adultery, 1 abandonment, 2 bridewealth, 1 levirate, 1 divorce, 0 compensation, 1 marriage agreement; 1954: 6 wife kidnapping, 9 adultery, 4 abandonment, 4 bridewealth, 2 levirate, 2 divorce, 2 compensation, 0 marriage agreement; 1955: 2 wife kidnapping, 0 adultery, 4 abandonment, 2 bridewealth, 0 levirate, 0 divorce, 0 compensation, 0 marriage agreement. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Even in these cases in which the husband came to court petitioning for a divorce and the reimbursement of bridewealth, husbands only did so because it was their wives who first asked for a divorce. These husbands had attempted to reconcile with their wives and the women refused. Women had absconded with other men or taken refuge at the home of kin. Husbands went to court more crucially in oder to seek reimburesement of bridewealth. See Case #3 December 1, 1950; Case #66 April 2, 1952; Case #20 November 26, 1953; Case #147 June 1, 1954; See Case #168 December 1, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See for example case #11 January 4, 1951; Case #23 February 2, 1951; Case #24 February 2, 1951; Case #28 May 15, 1951; Case #148 June 15, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Colonial administrators in other colonies also argued that women guilty of adultery should be directly punished with prison or fines, rather than fining her accomplice. An administrator in Congo wrote, “in my opinion sanctions must be the same for the wife as for her accomplice. To act differently would encourage prostitution, and to a certain extent, vagrancy since complicit husbands, and there is no lack of them, especially in laborer’s workshops, count on the systematic indulgence of the courts towards women to blackmail their wives’ lovers by threatening them with a suit in court”. CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, lettre du Chef du département de Pool (Congo) à Monsieur le GG, chargé de l’Adminstration du territoire du Moyen-Congo, référence: lettre #20 AP.2 du 5 février 1946 au sujet des divorces indigenes, 4 avril 1947.
Articles 336, 337, and 338 of the Penal Code allowed for a prison sentence of 3 months to two years, for the adulterous wife. In addition to the same term in prison, an accomplice could also be fined 100-2,000 francs. The only way that a husband could be convicted of adultery was if he had sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife in the conjugal home. ANG, 2686 lettre du Procureur général, Chef du service judicaire de l’AEF à Messieurs les Chefs du territoire du Gabon, du Moyen-Congo, de l’Oubangui-Chari et du Tchad, 26 juin 1946.
From 1939 to 1955, only three cases of the criminal prosecution of women for adultery appear in court registers.
CSSP, 2D60.2a4, Document #5, Projet de règlement des mariages entre Indigènes de race Fang, Article XI.
In their work on colonial Ghana, Allman & Tashjian (2000: 172) also found women to be marginal to the unfolding of court proceedings on adultery: “Although it was the wife who often set an adultery case in motion by her confession, she was never a central figure in the proceedings. Adultery remained a suit, a transaction between men. The husband, not the woman herself, was considered the person wronged.”
For examples, see Case #46 October 15, 1951; Case #63 March 15, 1952; Case #98 February 1, 1953; Case #129 January 15, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
1950: Case #2 November 5; Case #5 December 2; Case #6 December 15. 1951: Case #10 January 4; Case #18 February 1; Case #25 February 2; Case #46 October 15; Case #47 October 16; Case #50 November 13. 1952: Case #63 March 15; Case #67 April 15; Case #70 Mai 31; Case #88 December 2. 1953: Case #90 January 5; Case #91 January 5; Case #98 February 1; Case #108 April 16; Case #108 April 16; Case #114 June 16. 1954: Case #129 January 15; Case #130 January 15; Case #133 February 3; Case #143 April 1; Case #145 May 1; Case #150 October 1; Case #161 October 15; Case #164 October 24; Case #169 December 1. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #133 February 3, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See Case #6 December 15, 1950; Case #63 March 15, 1952; Case #98 February 1, 1953; Case #145 May 1, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #91 January 5, 1953; Case #98; February 1, 1953; Case #108 April 16, 1953; Case #145 May 1, 1953. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See Case #5 December 2, 1950; Case #67 April 15, 1952; Case #161 October 15, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Men had extensive grounds for divorce: in case of a wife’s repeated adultery, inveterate laziness in carrying out work dictated by custom, incurable disease caught as a result of relations with someone other than her husband, witchcraft, and abortio (Mba 1938: 76-77).
CSSP, 2D60.2a4 Document #5, Projet de règlement des mariages entre indigènes de race fang, Article XIII, octobre 1942.
Specifically, a second or third wife could ask for a divorce for “serious and proven motives” such as the desire to marry a single man, if she had been married prior to puberty, and if she wanted to be baptized. The document defined “severe ill-treatment” of a wife by her husband as excessive, prolonged and unmotivated abandonment. Another justification for divorce was the case of spouses who were of different religions and when one spouse refused to allow the other to practice their religion. CSSP, Projet de règlement, Article XIII, Octobre 1942.
CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, lettre du Procureur général chef du service judicaire de l’AEF à Monsieur le Directeur des Affaires politiques, 31 janvier 1946; CAOM, aef/ggaef/5D56, lettre du Procureur du Tribunal de 1re Instance de Libreville à Monsieur le Chef du territoire du Gabon, lettre #494/APS du 29 juillet 1948 relative aux jugements rendus en 1947 en matière de mariage indigène, 30 juin 1948.
See Case #16 Janaury 15, 1951; Case #34 April 16, 1951. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #9 January 3, 1950; Case #16 January 19, 1950; Case #34 April 16 1951; Case #142 April 1, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
For abandonment cases in which divorce was ruled see: Case #9 January 3, 1950; Case #16 January 19, 1950; Case #34 April 16 1951; Case #44 July 9, 1951; Case #57 January 9, 1952; Case #60 February 9, 1952; Case #64 April 2, 1952; Case #78 June 30, 1952; Case #92 January 15, 1953; Case #120 November 26, 1953; Case #134 January 15, 1954; Case #142 April 1, 1942; Case #152 October 1, 1954; Case #173 February 1, 1955; Case #176 February 23, 1955; Case #181 May 1, 1955. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
As an exception, two rulings for divorce did detail that husbands directly sued their wives and made no mention of male relatives. In these cases, the wives themselves were directly charged with reimbursing bridewealth. See Case #173 February 1, 1955; Case #181 May 1, 1955. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #60 February 9, 1952. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #19 February 1, 1951. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
In 1952, a man named Nzé Evore directly brought suit against his wife Eyang N’Guema, not her relatives, claiming that her desertion and request for divorce were based on “frivolous grounds”. The court ordered for her to return to the conjugal home. Perhaps the fact that there were no male relatives present to support her claim led to the court’s ruling. Case #82 October 16, 1952. For cases in which women were compelled to return providing that husbands pay wives’ families requested payments see: Case #32 April 16, 1951. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
This option was recognized as a legitimate bargaining tool: “A father or one her relatives is authorized to retain the woman in cases of severe physical cruelty or insults inflicted upon her by her husband, and in the process of reconciliation, or also in order to oblige the husband to pay the remainder of bridewealth. The husband must submit to these demands if they are justified or well-founded” (Mba 1938: 76).
Case #32, April 1, 1951. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See also the case of Bivegue Biadong against his father in law Obiang Minko on the charge of his wife Mengue Bekale’s abandonment. Obiang Minko declared that he would allow her to return to him if he paid him 2,500 francs. The court ruled, “According to custom Bivegue Biadong must satisfy Obiang Minko the 2,500 francs and will take back his wife”. Case #178, April 15, 1955. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #94 January 15, 1953; Case #99 February 1, 1953; Case #141 March 22, 1954; Case #144 May 1, 1954; Case #175 February 15, 1955. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
ANG, Register #107, Tribunal indigène de second degré du Département de l’Estuaire, statuant en matière de justice répressive directe, affaire N’Guema Mba, Rapt de femme, Case #36, May 10, 1949.
In 1951, 1952, and 1954, the court granted a divorce in 100% of the cases involving rapt de femme in which the wife insisted upon a divorce. However, in 1954, exceptions occurred in which the court ordered women to return to their husbands in fifty percent of the eight cases involving rapt de femme. Even if the lover had already remitted a bridewealth payment to the woman’s family, the court her kin to return the rival suitor’s bridewealth. This one year is the one exception to the general trend of customary courts to grant divorces in kidnapping cases in which the wife refused to return to her first husband or had already engaged in rapt one or two times before. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #9 January 1951; Case #37 May 15, 1951; Case #59 February 3, 1952, January 1953; Case #113 June 15, 1953; Case #114 June 16, 1953; Case #126 December 12, 1953; Case #128 March 16, 1954; Case #169 November 16, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See Case #45 October, 1951; #76 June 30, 1952; #83 December 2, 1952; #134 January 15, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
See Case #13 January 16, 1951; Case #31 April 16, 1951; Case #42 July 9, 1951; Case #45 October 16, 1951; Case #69 May 31, 1952; Case #76 June 30, 1952; Case #83 December 2, 1952; Case #134 January 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
Case #134, January 15, 1954. ANG, Register #112, Registre des jugements, Tribunal Coutumier.
ANG, Register #106 Département de l’Estuaire, Tribunal indigène du second degré en matière répressive, civile et commerciale, 25 août 1939-Septembre 1941; Register #112, Département de l’Estuaire, Tribunal indigène, du second degré en matière répressive, civile et commerciale 1950-1956; Register #107, Département de l’Estuaire justice répressive indigène, Tribunal indigène du second degré 1944-1956; Register #116 Registre du tribunal des premier et second Degré, 1956-1966.
ANG, Register #107, Appeal #3, Toussaint Dowet-Pither versus Émilienne Gondjout, May 23, 1949.
ANG, 2DA(I)11, région de l’Estuaire, justice civile indigène, les affaires opposant les individus traitées au Tribunal du premier degré de la subdivision de Libreville, Jean-Baptiste Asse Bekale vs. Bekale Mba, 5 mai 1939.
ANG, lettre du Gouverneur général de l’Afrique équatoriale française à Monsieur le Chef du territoire du Gabon, Libreville, #116/APAG, 13 mars 1942.
Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré, Memvie Memba versus Joseph Amvame, 16 juillet 1960.
Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré, Augustin Mougangue versus Pauline Babina, 7 juin 1958.
In setting up concubinage, a suitor often agreed with the woman and a male representative from her family to give her a certain sum of money to provide for her. ANG, Register #112, Tribunal indigène du deuxième degré de l’Estuaire, Case #1, 10 octobre 1950, Pauline M’Atanga versus Antoine Figuereido.
See also the following cases in which the second degree court reversed decisions by the first degree court and judged that relationships were either formal engagements or marriages that entailed the reimbursement of goods or cash to the plaintiff: Vincent Waga versus Catherine Betoe, November 11, 1959; Maurice Ntoutoume versus Mlle Marie-Christine, October 31, 1959. Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré.
The court assessed the wife and her family or lover an additional fee ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 francs in cases of abandonment or adultery.
ANG, Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré, Jean-Francois Bekale versus Essone Ebone, November 22, 1957.
See the following for cases in which the court confirmed or increased bridewealth amounts and fines to be paid see: Engone-Emane versus André Bekang, January 1, 1958; Minko Messo versus Jérôme Mba, April 4, 1958; Georgette Youekeni versus Gilles Abeke, December 20, 1958; 1959: Joseph Tamba versus Mme Flonorine Mobonassi, November 28, 1959; Thomas NGoma-Nkoume versus Mme Hélène Gnigone, October 3, 1959; Joseph Tamba versus Mme Flonorine Mobossasi, November 28, 1959; Mme Micheline Obiang Oyame versus Grégoire Bekale, March 5, 1960; Jean-Désiré N’Dong versus Édouard Bekale N’Doutume, April 16, 1960; Joseph Mba versus Jean-Louis Moret, November 14, 1959. ANG, Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré.
ANG, Register #107, Tribunal indigène du second degré de Libreville, Case #1 Eyang Emane versus Philippe Mouloungui April 16, 1948.
A man could establish paternity and rights to his child if he did marry his lover and paid an additional fine to her family in order to claim paternity (Augagneur 1923: 17; Mba 1938: 88-89).
ANG, Register #107, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré, Eyang Emane versus Philippe Mouloungui, April 16, 1948.
ANG, 2DA(I)11, Jean-Baptiste Asse Bekale versus Mba Bekale, May 19, 1939.
ANG, Register #91, Tribunal indigène de premier degré, Registres des audiences publiques conciliation, commune de Libreville, Joseph N’Goua versus Marie-Thérèse Betoe, August 6, 1956.
ANG, Register #116, région de l’Estuaire, district de Libreville, Régistre du Tribunal des premier degré et second degré, Joseph N’Goua versus Marie-Thérèse Betoe, December 7, 1956.
See the following suits: Paul Eman Richard versus Juliette Eto, January 4, 1957; El Hadj Mhamadou Bekale Ignace versus Louis Nang Obame, November 15, 1957; Paul Bekale versus Mme Bekale Marie-Louise Condja, January 1, 1958; N’Zé Mba versus Justin Bekale, April 11, 1959. ANG, Register #116, Registre du tribunal des premier et second degré.
ANG, Register #116, Paul Bekale versus Condja Marie-Louise Bekale, January 3, 1958.
Haut de page