On Thursday, September 11, 2025, South Africa’s Constitutional Court delivered a landmark decision that’s set to reshape the country’s approach to marriage, identity, and the lingering legacy of colonial-era laws. In a ruling widely described as historic, the nation’s highest court found that the law preventing husbands from taking their wives’ surnames—or opting for a hyphenated family name—was unconstitutional and rooted in outdated, patriarchal norms.
The case, which originated with two South African couples challenging the Department of Home Affairs, shone a spotlight on a legal framework many saw as a relic of the past. The couples—Jana Jordaan and Henry Van Der Merwe, and Jess Donnelly-Bornman and Andreas Nicolas Bornman—had each attempted to share or exchange surnames as part of their marriage, only to find themselves blocked by the existing law. For Henry Van Der Merwe, the denial came despite a mutual agreement with his wife before their wedding; for Andreas Bornman, the obstacle was the Department’s refusal to allow a hyphenated surname that included both partners’ family names.
Justice Loena Theron, delivering the court’s opinion, did not mince words about the law’s origins. She described it as a “colonial import rooted in patriarchal norms where women were seen as legally inferior to their husbands and expected to assume their identity.” According to News24, Theron emphasized that the tradition of women taking their husbands’ surnames was not a longstanding African custom, but rather one imposed through European colonizers and Christian missionaries. The court’s ruling pointed out, “in many African cultures, women retained their birth names after marriage, and children often took their mother’s clan name.”
The law in question, known as the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, was a product of the apartheid era—years marked by white-minority rule and a tangle of discriminatory legislation. Under this act, only women were permitted to change their surnames upon marriage, a rule that, according to the court, infringed on the equality guaranteed by South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution. As AP reported, Justice Theron declared the law’s failure to offer men the same right as women to change their surname upon marriage amounted to “unfair gender-based discrimination.”
The Constitutional Court’s decision did not simply strike down the law overnight. Instead, the court suspended its declaration for 24 months, giving lawmakers and President Cyril Ramaphosa two years to amend the legislation or introduce a new, non-discriminatory framework. This approach, according to The Citizen, is designed to ensure a smooth transition and avoid administrative chaos while Parliament works out the details.
South Africa’s move aligns it more closely with other African nations that already allow gender-neutral name changes. In Kenya and Nigeria, for instance, adults can change their names for any reason through a deed poll, without regard to gender. Zimbabwe requires a notarial deed of change of name and publication in a government gazette, but again, the process is open to both men and women. North Africa remains an exception, where countries like Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt do not allow surname changes through marriage at all—spouses must retain their birth names, and any alteration requires a separate judicial or administrative process.
While the legal victory was celebrated by some as a progressive leap for Africa’s most industrialized nation, the reaction on social media and in public discourse was anything but unanimous. According to DW, the ruling sparked a flurry of heated comments online. Some South Africans welcomed the decision, seeing it as a necessary step to correct past injustices and promote equality. Others, however, viewed it as a threat to tradition and cultural norms. One social media user, quoted by AP, argued that the ruling was intended to “destroy the norms and values” of Black Indigenous Africans. Yet, as another South African woman pointed out on X, “Why are men panicking in the comments, the ruling isn’t enforcing that you take the wife’s surname, it is optional? Calm down wow.”
Supporters of the court’s decision argue that it will help preserve rare or endangered family names, giving couples the freedom to choose how they wish to shape their family identity. Critics, on the other hand, worry that it could erode established customs and further distance South Africa from its cultural roots—a concern that’s not new in a country where questions of identity, tradition, and modernity often collide.
This is hardly the first time South Africa has broken new ground in matters of marriage and personal freedom. The country was the first in Africa to legalize same-sex marriage in 2006, with both partners free to choose their surname after marriage. The government also recognizes polygamous marriages, allowing men to take multiple wives according to their ethnic group’s customs. These policies, as noted by AP, have made South Africa a regional leader in legal recognition of diverse family structures.
For the couples at the heart of this legal battle, the ruling is more than just a legal technicality—it’s a vindication of their right to define their own family. Andreas Bornman and Jess Donnelly-Bornman wanted both to have their family names hyphenated, while Henry van der Merwe sought to take his wife Jana Jordaan’s surname. Their cases, as detailed by RT and DW, highlighted the very real human impact of laws many might otherwise view as abstract or technical. The lower court had already ruled in their favor in September 2024, finding the law unconstitutional and discriminatory, but it took the Constitutional Court’s affirmation to set a national precedent.
Justice Theron’s ruling, while firmly rooted in the law, also acknowledged the broader historical and cultural context. “With the arrival of the European colonisers and Christian missionaries, and the imposition of Western values, the tradition of women taking their husband’s surname was introduced,” she wrote. The court’s decision, in her view, is not about erasing tradition but about restoring equality and giving South Africans the freedom to choose.
As Parliament now faces the task of amending the Births and Deaths Registration Act, the debate is sure to continue. Lawmakers will need to navigate a complex terrain of legal, cultural, and personal considerations—balancing respect for tradition with the imperative to uphold constitutional rights. And while the ruling may not force anyone to change their name, it opens the door for couples across South Africa to make that choice together, on their own terms.
This decision, coming nearly three decades after the end of apartheid, marks another step in South Africa’s ongoing journey toward a more inclusive and equitable society. The real test will be how the country, its lawmakers, and its people choose to walk that path.
