South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that husbands can legally take their wives’ surnames, overturning a colonial-era law that barred men from changing their surnames after marriage. The September 11, 2025, judgment described the law as a “colonial import” and unconstitutional gender discrimination.
Two couples challenged the apartheid-era legislation, leading the court to give Parliament two years to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act. Government ministers backed the case, while civil rights groups hailed the ruling as a victory for gender equality and cultural respect.
Court Declares Colonial-Era Law Unconstitutional
The ruling fundamentally cancels provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Act that limited surname changes to women only. Justice Leona Theron, delivering the unanimous judgment, stated that the law stemmed from Roman-Dutch colonial legal traditions and imposed Western patriarchal norms inconsistent with South Africa’s constitutional values of equality and dignity.
“The prohibition against husbands adopting their wives’ surnames is discriminatory and outdated,” she said. The judgment allows men to take their wives’ surnames or hyphenate both partners’ names if they wish. The court suspended the invalidity declaration for 24 months, granting Parliament time to amend the law accordingly.
Two Couples Challenge the Law
This landmark case was driven by two couples who formally challenged the Home Affairs Department. The first couple, Henry van der Merwe and Jana Jordaan, wanted Henry to adopt Jana’s surname but was denied under current law. The second couple, Andreas Bornman and Jess Donnelly-Bornman, sought to hyphenate their surnames, but faced similar legal restrictions.
Their lawsuits argued that the law violated constitutional rights to equality and dignity. The Constitutional Court upheld a 2024 lower court ruling that found the law gender-discriminatory. Civil society organisations, notably Sonke Gender Justice, welcomed the ruling as a “monumental step” towards inclusivity and family autonomy.
Historic Roots and Cultural Significance
The court’s judgment contextualised the law as a relic of South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history, highlighting how Western legal systems and Christian missionary influence imposed norms where wives took husbands’ surnames-a practice inconsistent with many African traditions. The judgment stressed that “in numerous African cultures, women retain their birth names after marriage, and children often receive their mother’s clan name,” a custom erased by colonial laws.
The ruling did not force any changes on families but presented freedom of choice about surnaming within marriages, respecting individual and cultural preferences. Some traditionalists expressed concerns that the ruling challenges long-standing social customs, but the government expressed support for legislative reform.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This profound ruling not only rectifies a gender injustice but also honours the diverse cultural identities within postcolonial societies. It exemplifies how law can discard oppressive colonial legacies and embrace fairness, dignity, and respect for individual choice.
South Africa’s decision reminds us that equality involves recognising and validating the identities women hold in their communities, empowering men and women alike to define their family narratives.
