By Eniola Amadu
South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that husbands may legally adopt the surnames of their wives, striking down a law that prohibited the practice and labeling it a form of gender-based discrimination.
The ruling followed a challenge brought by two couples who argued that the restriction was outdated and unconstitutional.
Henry van der Merwe had been prevented from adopting the surname of his wife, Jana Jordaan, while Andreas Nicolas Bornman was barred from hyphenating his surname to include that of his wife, Jess Donnelly-Bornman, according to public broadcaster SABC.
READ ALSO: Court denies bail to Owo church attack suspects
Parliament is now required to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act and its regulations to bring the law into line with the court’s decision.
The law originated during South Africa’s period of white-minority rule and reflected practices imported through colonial and European influence.
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court emphasized that many African societies traditionally allowed women to retain their birth names after marriage, with children often taking their mother’s clan name.
These customs shifted after European colonization and the adoption of Western norms.
“The custom that a wife takes the husband’s surname existed in Roman-Dutch law, and in this way was introduced into South African common law,” the court said.
It added that such practices were reinforced by colonial legislation across much of sub-Saharan Africa.
The judgment described the ruling as a step forward for gender equality, while acknowledging that laws and practices perpetuating stereotypes remain embedded in the legal system.
Neither the Minister of Home Affairs, Leon Schreiber, nor the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mamoloko Kubayi, opposed the couples’ application.
Both accepted that the legislation was outdated and inconsistent with constitutional rights.
READ ALSO: South Korean court overturns 1965 conviction in landmark sexual assault case
The Free State Society of Advocates also supported the case, arguing that the law denied men a choice that women already had and entrenched harmful stereotypes about family and identity.
The Constitutional Court’s decision confirms an earlier lower court ruling in favor of the couples.
