By: Abigail Visagie
A recent court ruling allowing married couples to decide freely on adopting either spouse’s surname has been labelled “uncultural” (sic) by critics, who argue that it undermines long-standing African traditions around marriage and family identity, while others oppose it on religious grounds.
The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit against the Department of Home Affairs by Henry van der Merwe, who was denied the legal right to take the surname of his wife, Jana Jordaan, and Andreas Nicolas Bornman, who could not hyphenate his surname to include the surname of his wife, Jess Donnelly-Bornman.
The parties asked the judges to confirm an order of constitutional invalidity granted, which was ratified by the High Court in Bloemfontein.
The Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (Contralesa) condemned the ruling as “uncultural,” further calling it a continuation of colonial influence.
Speaking exclusively to Journal News, Contralesa secretary-general, Zolani Mkiva, said the Constitutional Court’s ruling would destroy not only lineages but also traditions that form the core of South African identity.
“I strongly believe that judges should not interpret equality simplistically, because this narrative will cause more damage than colonialism itself.”
Mkiva described the ruling as devastating and symbolic of the ‘continuation of colonialism’.
While some view the decision as a step towards dismantling patriarchal traditions and advancing gender equality, Mkiva insisted that communal structure, identity, and lineage are defined through current cultural practices.
“When two people get married, it is a union of families; therefore, the ruling by the Constitutional Court shows pure ignorance of the depth of our cultures,” he argued.
Mkiva further urged the judiciary to consult heritage experts in cases touching on cultural identity.
“African heritage experts need to educate judges on the depth of African culture and offer more insight and clarity. If that happens, such rulings will not see the light of day,” he concluded.
Journal News also spoke to community members who also rendered their views on the controversial ruling.
Avuile Mthombeni echoed Mkiva’s sentiments, adding that the decision undermines the dignity of men, particularly those who traditionally pay dowry – commonly known as lobola.
“I would never do that to myself. This law is designed for foreigners who want to get green cards through marriage, where the woman doesn’t have to take her husband’s surname. That makes sense.
“But I don’t think any South African man with logic and common sense would accept this,” Mthombeni added.
He added that he had seen, on social media and reality shows, cases where women who took foreign husbands’ surnames suffered difficulties later.
Nathan van Wyk opposed the ruling on religious grounds, saying it contradicts biblical teaching on family authority.
“I am against the Constitutional Court’s decision to let a man legally adopt his wife’s surname because God made Adam first and gave him authority to rule his household. A man’s surname must be carried forward, as the Bible says a son is an inheritance from the Lord (Psalms 127:3-5). Authority was given to Adam, not Eve,” van Wyk explained.
Saskia Bruintjies, however, expressed her commitment to tradition, saying she prefers to use her husband’s surname.
“I am a firm believer in lineage and traditions. Taking my husband’s surname feels like there is a blessing in the union,” she said, half-joking that if her husband were wealthier, she would “definitely” take his surname.
In contrast, Thabo Khetele said he would have no issue taking his wife’s surname.
“The same way I’d wear your gown or slippers, I’d share the same sentiment with a surname - as long as there is mutual love and respect,” Khetele remarked.
