South Africa’s Constitutional Court has struck down an apartheid-era law that prevented husbands from taking their wife’s family name or adopting a hyphenated surname upon marriage—a decision that has sparked a passionate national debate about tradition, equality, and the evolving face of family in Africa’s most developed democracy.
On Thursday, September 11, 2025, the country’s highest court ruled that the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, which currently only allows women to change their family name when their marital status changes, is unconstitutional. The court’s decision mandates that lawmakers and President Cyril Ramaphosa amend the law within two years, opening the door for South African men to legally take their wife’s surname or create a hyphenated family name if they wish.
The ruling stems from a 2024 lawsuit brought by two couples who challenged the Department of Home Affairs for gender discrimination. Andreas Nicolaas 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. Last September, a lower court found the law unconstitutional and discriminatory, and the Constitutional Court has now upheld that decision.
Justice Loena Theron, delivering the court’s judgment, stated unequivocally that the existing law was “unfair and discriminated based on gender.” According to AP News, Theron’s words underscored the court’s view that the law perpetuated outdated gender roles and failed to reflect the values of equality enshrined in South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution.
Predictably, the landmark ruling set off a firestorm of commentary across social media. Supporters hailed the decision as a progressive step for South Africa, with some noting that it could help preserve rare or endangered family names that might otherwise disappear. One user remarked that allowing husbands to take their wife’s surname or hyphenate their names is “a win for equality and for families who want to honor both lineages.”
Others, however, were far less enthusiastic. Critics argued that the ruling represents a break from South Africa’s cultural traditions, with some expressing concern that it could erode longstanding social norms. As reported by The Independent, one user on X (formerly Twitter) wrote that the ruling is intended to “destroy the norms and values” of Black Indigenous Africans—a sentiment that resonated with those who view surname conventions as deeply tied to cultural identity and heritage.
It’s not the first time South Africa has found itself at the forefront of social change on the continent. Back in 2006, the country became the first in Africa to legalize same-sex marriage, granting both partners the freedom to choose their surname after marriage. The government has also recognized polygamous marriages, allowing men in certain ethnic groups to take multiple wives according to their customs. These legal milestones have established South Africa as a leader in progressive family law—though, as the current debate shows, not everyone is ready to embrace every aspect of change.
The practical implications of the court’s ruling are significant. Under the current law, a woman may change her surname upon marriage, divorce, or widowhood, but men have no such right. This asymmetry, the court found, amounted to gender discrimination—contradicting the spirit, if not the letter, of South Africa’s constitutional commitment to equality. The court’s decision now obliges lawmakers to craft an amended law that grants both spouses equal rights regarding family names.
For couples like the Bornman-Donnellys and the Van der Merwe-Jordaans, the ruling is more than a legal technicality—it’s a matter of personal identity and family unity. As the plaintiffs argued in court, the existing law forced families into rigid, patriarchal molds that didn’t reflect their values or relationships. Their victory is likely to inspire other couples who wish to chart their own course when it comes to naming conventions.
The ruling has also prompted broader conversations about what it means to be South African in the 21st century. Advocates for change argue that the law should reflect the diversity and dynamism of modern families. “Why should a name be a barrier to equality?” asked one commentator online. “It’s time for our laws to catch up with our lives.”
Yet, for those who see the ruling as a threat to tradition, the issue is far from settled. Some fear that allowing men to take their wife’s surname or hyphenate family names will undermine the patrilineal customs that have defined many South African communities for generations. These critics argue that the court’s decision could set a precedent for further changes to family law, potentially eroding the cultural foundations of marriage and kinship.
According to AP News, the debate has highlighted the tension between constitutional rights and cultural traditions—a familiar theme in South Africa’s legal history. The country’s post-apartheid constitution is widely regarded as one of the most progressive in the world, guaranteeing equal rights regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation. But translating those lofty principles into everyday life has often proved complicated, especially when it comes to issues of family and identity.
Some social media users have suggested that the ruling could help preserve rare family names, which might otherwise vanish in a system that defaults to the husband’s surname. Others have countered that name changes could make tracing ancestry more difficult, especially in communities where surnames carry significant historical meaning. The debate, in other words, cuts to the heart of how South Africans see themselves—both as individuals and as members of a larger national story.
The government now faces the task of rewriting the Births and Deaths Registration Act to comply with the court’s ruling. Lawmakers and President Ramaphosa have been given two years to make the necessary changes—a deadline that ensures the issue will remain in the public eye for some time to come. Whether the new law will satisfy both sides of the debate remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the question of what’s in a name has never been more relevant.
As South Africa prepares to update its laws, the country once again finds itself navigating the delicate balance between honoring tradition and embracing progress. The Constitutional Court’s decision marks a new chapter in the ongoing story of South African democracy—a story in which equality, identity, and cultural heritage all have a part to play.
