WHEN a child is born, they must receive a birth certificate that shows the parents’ identities, the district of origin, the given name and when and where the birth occurred.
This process is very important and is provided for in the law, including Zimbabwe’s most important law, the Constitution.
Getting a birth certificate is a gateway to education, healthcare, inheritance and legal protection.
However, when parents die before a child’s birth is registered, the process becomes very difficult, especially where social norms, cultural expectations and at times, exploitative practices, hinder access to documentation.
This article interrogates the social dynamics that arise in such circumstances, drawing from lived experiences and commonly observed patterns, including the demand for lobola (bride price) even from children, withholding of death certificates, imposition of mombe yechiredzwa, demands for compensation (kuripwa), and narratives surrounding the conduct or rejection of a daughter-in-law (muroora aitivhairira or hatimudi). These practices, while rooted in cultural frameworks, often produce outcomes that undermine children’s rights.
The legal importance of birth registration
Keep Reading
- Addressing unfair trade key to transforming African food systems
- Athletics team buzzing after Mauritius heroics
- Urgent economic structural transformation necessary
- South Korea and US fire missiles in warning to North Korea
At law, birth registration is the right of the child and a duty of the State and caregivers. It is intended to be immediate and free from discrimination.
However, the absence of one or both parents complicates compliance with procedural requirements, particularly where supporting documents such as parents’ identity documents or death certificates are required.
In practice, children who lose parents before registration often rely on extended family members to facilitate the process. It is sad when social norms interfere with legal processes.
Some of the social challenges faced by children in accessing birth registration after the death of parents are:
Cultural expectations
In most communities, the paternal family assumes primary authority over matters concerning a child, especially where lineages are concerned.
While this may serve legitimate cultural purposes, it also creates a power imbalance when documentation is controlled by that side of the family.
Withholding of death certificates
One of the most frequently encountered barriers is the withholding of a deceased parent’s death certificate by relatives.
The death certificate is often a prerequisite for late birth registration. In some cases, paternal relatives deliberately withhold this document as leverage in unresolved family disputes.
The effect is that the child cannot obtain a birth certificate and is effectively rendered legally invisible. This withholding is rarely framed as outright denial; rather, it is justified through cultural grievances, thereby masking its impact on the child.
The demand for lobola from children
A particularly troubling development is the demand that lobola be settled before a child can be recognised or assisted in obtaining documentation.
Traditionally, lobola is a process between families that formalises a marriage. However, in cases where a father dies before completing or paying lobola, some paternal families insist that the obligation must still be fulfilled, sometimes by the deceased’s children.
This expectation is both legally and ethically problematic. Children, particularly minors, cannot assume contractual or cultural obligations of this nature. Yet, in practice, they are often told that without settling lobola, they cannot use the father’s surname, access his records or be acknowledged as legitimate members of the family.
This transforms a cultural practice to a gatekeeping mechanism that directly obstructs the child’s right to identity.
Mombe yechiredzwa obligations
Mombe yechiredzwa, traditionally associated with appeasing spirits or resolving issues surrounding death and inheritance, has also emerged as a condition imposed before assisting with documentation.
Families may demand that this ritual obligation be fulfilled before they release information or documents necessary for birth registration.
While cultural rites are an integral part of community life, their imposition as a precondition for accessing civil documentation raises serious concerns.
It effectively subordinates statutory rights to customary compliance, often at the expense of vulnerable children who lack the means to satisfy such demands.
Kuripwa: compensation as a barrier
Another recurring theme is the demand for compensation for perceived wrongs committed by the deceased parent or their relatives.
Phrases such as muroora aitivhairira (suggesting that the daughter-in-law was disrespectful or failed in her duties) are invoked to justify withholding co-operation.
These narratives are deeply gendered and frequently used to shift blame to the maternal side of the family.
In some instances, extended family members refuse to co-operate with birth registration processes until compensation is paid.
The rationale is that the family is owed something and will not assist until the debt is settled.
This dynamic underscores how patriarchal or matriarchal norms can intersect with administrative processes to disadvantage children. The injustice is clear; the child is penalised for circumstances beyond his or her control.
Institutional support gaps
While cultural practices play a significant role, administrative and legal frameworks sometimes make the problems worse through the following.
- a) Over-reliance on parental documentation: Civil registration systems need to be flexible to accommodate alternative forms of proof, such as affidavits from community leaders or DNA evidence.
- b) Lack of clear protocols for orphaned children: Caregivers are often left extended family members who may have conflicting interests.
- c) Limited enforcement of the law on birth registration: Although the law recognises the right to identity, enforcement mechanisms are weak. There are limited avenues for compelling unco-operative relatives to release documents or provide information.
While traditions serve important social functions, their application must not undermine the fundamental rights of children. The stories we encounter, of children being asked to pay lobola, of death certificates being withheld, of compensation being demanded, highlight the urgent need for reform. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect systemic patterns that require coordinated responses from legal institutions, communities and policymakers. Ultimately, the principle must be clear: a child’s right to identity is non-negotiable. No cultural practice, however deeply rooted, should stand in the way of that right.