The Constitutional Court’s 11 September 2025 ruling, which found sections of the
Births and Deaths Registration Act unconstitutional for preventing husbands from adopting
their wives’ surnames, has ignited intense national discussion (SAFLII 2025; TimesLIVE
2025). While Parliament and the President have twenty-four months to amend the law,
South Africans are already debating its potential impact on culture, gender dynamics, and
citizenship.
On social media, many expressed outrage and anxiety. In one Facebook post from
Mmametlhake, Mpumalanga, a user suggested that the law could be exploited by male
foreigners to gain citizenship through marriage, warning that “foreigners will marry South
African women, take their surnames, and then get jobs freely, even if they arrived illegally.”
Another commenter wrote that “women are celebrating and not seeing the danger in this law. All they care about is being spiteful to men.” These sentiments show how fears about
economic vulnerability, immigration, and cultural erosion have become intertwined in public
opinion.
Among the most vocal critics is a 2017 Activator (one of the members of the ACTIVATE!
Change Drivers network), Sizolwenkosi Mordecai Ndlovu, who is also a Global Campaign
Director of Men In Black Doeks, an author of Men As Allies To Gender Equity, and a
podcaster at Dad In The Shadow. Ndlovu argues that the change “is completely wrong… It
goes against our African culture and undermines the dignity of men and women in South
Africa”. He also questioned the decision-making process, asking, “Where was the public
engagement by the President? Which traditional council was consulted? Or does the
government rule itself nowadays?” In addition, he warned that the reform “does not only
disempower men but also women in a traditional family context… It strips men of the little
dignity and way of life we strive for.” To mobilise resistance, he launched the #NotInMyHouse campaign, reflecting widespread unease about cultural shifts.
Yet the ruling of the Constitutional Court is not an immediate overhaul but a legal correction. The Court held that denying men the choice to adopt their wives’ surnames was
discriminatory, giving Parliament and the President two years to address the issue
(BusinessTech 2025; IOL 2025). The option does not force any couple to deviate from
tradition; it simply broadens choice. Many South Africans will likely continue the conventional practice of women taking their husbands’ surnames. Others may opt for hyphenated or alternative arrangements that better reflect their values. The Court’s action can thus be understood as part of South Africa’s ongoing effort to balance constitutional rights with cultural heritage.
This moment also recalls earlier societal changes that initially faced resistance but later
became normal. The entry of women into schools and the labour force, once labelled
anticultural, is now an accepted feature of South African life. Change often meets opposition before society adapts. Recognising this pattern can help temper today’s anxieties without dismissing legitimate concerns about culture and tradition.
Fears about opportunism and citizenship exploitation, while understandable, may
oversimplify broader immigration and economic issues. Legal frameworks already exist to
regulate citizenship applications and employment eligibility. Structural unemployment and
economic inequality cannot be attributed to a single legal reform. Similarly, the perception
that women uniquely “love money” reflects gender stereotypes, when in reality financial
ambition and need cut across genders and communities.
What emerges from this debate is the importance of inclusive dialogue. Ndlovu’s criticism
regarding a lack of consultation underscores the need for the government to engage
traditional leaders, civil society, and ordinary citizens. A participatory process could help
reconcile constitutional mandates with cultural values, strengthening both democracy and
social cohesion.
In conclusion, the surname debate is less about names than it is about identity, culture, and citizenship in a transforming society. It presents an opportunity to engage constructively with difficult questions of gender equality, cultural preservation, and national belonging. The ruling has not dismantled tradition but opened a conversation about choice and fairness. South Africans can navigate this transition respectfully, acknowledging fears while recognising that culture, like law, evolves.