Key Points
- Judges cite colonial roots of discriminatory law
- Parliament given two years to amend statute
- Gender equality campaigners hail ruling as historic
ISLAMABAD: South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that husbands can legally adopt their wives’ surnames, overturning a previously discriminatory law that barred them from doing so.
The landmark judgment, brought by two couples who had their surname changes denied, affirms that the Births and Deaths Registration Act violated gender equality principles under South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution.
Parliament must now amend the Act to align with the court’s ruling, making this a significant step towards legal equality for all genders. The court gave Parliament two years to amend the law and ordered interim measures to allow men to change their surnames while legislation is updated.
According to AP News, two couples, including Henry van der Merwe and Jess Donnelly-Bornman, challenged the law, asserting it as ultra vires to constitutional equality rights
A colonial remnant struck down
In its ruling, Justice Leona Theron said the prohibition against husbands assuming wives’ surnames is “gender-based discrimination” rooted in colonial and Roman-Dutch legal traditions. The law permitted women to change their surname upon marriage, but denied men that right, the court said, thereby reinforcing patriarchal norms.
The two couples who brought the case had already won in a lower court, which declared the statute invalid in September. News24 reported that the apex court has now confirmed that decision.
News24 added that this means those affected can make legal changes even before full legislative reform takes effect.
The ruling has drawn both praise and criticism. Supporters, including human-rights groups and gender equality advocates, have welcomed it as a significant step toward dismantling male-centred legal presumptions.
As reported by AP News, Parliament and the ministers of Home Affairs and Justice did not oppose the challenge, implicitly urging the court to correct what they described as an “outdated” law.
On the other hand, some critics argue that the decision clashes with cultural and traditional norms, stating that surname practices are deeply embedded in certain South African communities. Others, according to The Independent, caution that legal equality will mean little if bureaucratic systems remain reluctant to implement the change.
News Agency AP reported that the case aligns with earlier landmark rulings, such as those recognising same-sex marriage, and it illustrates how legal systems can dismantle gendered norms embedded in family law. It gives South Africans and observers abroad, reason to question similar laws elsewhere.
