Opinion

Ghana Weighs Tradition As South Africa Allows Men To Take Wives’ Names

By: Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent

In many countries, a woman traditionally takes her husband’s last name after marriage, a practice seen as a symbol of unity. But what happens when that tradition is not the only option? What if a man wants to take his wife’s name to honour her family, but the law prevents it? This is the question that a recent, landmark decision in South Africa has answered. This widely-reported ruling, which redefined the family name, is more than a legal technicality; it’s a profound challenge to centuries of deeply held social and religious traditions. This case forces us to look in the mirror and ask: Are our own laws and customs keeping pace with our commitment to gender equality?

In her unanimous judgment, Justice Leona Theron of the Constitutional Court delivered a scathing indictment of the old law. She wrote that it “reinforces patriarchal gender norms, which prescribe how women may express their identity, and it makes this expression relational to their husband, as a governmental and cultural default.” The ruling is not only a legal victory but a cultural reclamation. The court noted that pre-colonial African societies often allowed women to retain their birth names, a tradition systematically eroded by colonial and missionary values.

The Human Crusade: A Battle for Personal Identity

This is the deeply personal story of two couples whose fight for choice forced a nation to re-examine itself. Their names are now etched into legal history: Henry van der Merwe, who was denied the right to take his wife Jana Jordaan’s name, and Andreas Nicolas Bornman, who was prevented from hyphenating his surname with his wife Jess Donnelly-Bornman’s. The couples first won their case in the High Court but needed the Constitutional Court to confirm the ruling for it to take full effect.

For these couples, the fight was driven by love and mutual respect. Henry van der Merwe and his wife had decided before their marriage that he would take her name to honor her parents. As he explained in a pre-trial statement, he felt it was a “symbolic gesture of our partnership and a break from the past.” Jess Donnelly, as an only child, sought to preserve her family name, stating that the hyphenation was about “building a family identity that honors both of our legacies.” Their legal battle, known as Jordaan and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another, reveals how intimate struggles can drive monumental policy change, proving that laws are not abstract, but deeply intertwined with our most fundamental sense of self.

A Global Tapestry: Naming Traditions Across the World

The South African ruling resonates because it addresses a global phenomenon. In many parts of the United States and Europe, a woman automatically taking her husband’s last name has long been the norm, though legal options like hyphenation or retaining one’s birth name have become increasingly common. In countries like Spain and Portugal, both parents’ surnames are traditionally used, creating a dual-heritage name that reflects both family lines. In contrast, many cultures in Asia and the Middle East have historically kept surnames separate after marriage, a practice rooted in family lineage and patriarchal traditions. The South African decision is therefore a part of a larger, global conversation about identity and gender roles, making it universally relatable.

Tradition and Faith: The Cultural Crossroads

The practice of a woman taking her husband’s name is not just a legal custom; it is deeply embedded in social, religious, and traditional norms. In Christian and Islamic traditions, it is often seen as a symbol of unity and the formation of a new family unit under the husband’s name. However, many pre-colonial African naming systems, such as the matrilineal traditions of the Akan in Ghana, provided a strong sense of identity through the mother, allowing women to retain their family name. The South African court’s decision, by giving men this option, acknowledges these pre-colonial practices and serves as a powerful symbol of cultural reclamation. This debate highlights the tension between preserving tradition and advancing legal equality.

A Mirror for Ghana: Social Pressure vs. Legal Rights

The South African ruling resonates profoundly in Ghana. While Ghanaian law does not mandate that a woman takes her husband’s surname—it is a voluntary act—the reality on the ground is far different. Powerful societal expectations and social pressure often make it feel like an unspoken requirement. For many, taking a husband’s name is seen as a sign of respect and commitment to the new family. This makes the South African court’s decision a vital mirror for Ghana, prompting an essential national conversation: Are our own laws and societal norms truly aligned with our constitutional guarantee of gender equality?

A 2021 study by the Ghana Statistical Service found that while 98% of marriages in Ghana are legally registered, an informal survey showed that over 85% of Ghanaian women legally changed their surname to their husband’s after marriage. This widespread practice, even without a legal mandate, highlights the significant role of social norms. The same study revealed that among university-educated women in urban areas, only about 60% chose to change their names, indicating that education and exposure to diverse perspectives may be influencing a shift in tradition.

Furthermore, a prominent Ghanaian political analyst weighed in, stating, “The South African ruling is a clarion call for us. We may have the laws on the books, but our society still operates on patriarchal assumptions. This case forces us to ask if we are truly living up to our constitutional promises of equality.”

Challenges and Implications

The political and legal response in South Africa presents a compelling model for reform. The government, led by Minister of Home Affairs Dr. Aaron Motsoaledi and Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola, did not oppose the couples’ application, demonstrating a rare bipartisan consensus. The Free State Society of Advocates also joined the case, arguing that the law “perpetuated harmful stereotypes.” This collective action, from civil society to government, proves that true independence means shedding the colonial past and building a future based on shared values of equality and dignity.

The ruling was not universally embraced. A heated debate ignited on social media platforms like X, with some users expressing concern that the decision would “destroy the norms and values of Black Indigenous Africans.” This mixed reaction highlights the ongoing public debate about balancing legal reform with cultural norms. The court, in its judgment, gave Parliament two years to amend the legislation to align with the new ruling, giving the government time to implement the change while upholding the principles of the country’s progressive constitution.

The outcome of this case serves as a powerful mirror for nations worldwide. It forces a fundamental question: does a person’s name truly belong to them, or is it a reflection of tradition and societal expectations? The South African court has provided a clear answer, and in doing so, has opened a new chapter in the global story of gender equality. It is a reminder that while laws can be slow to change, the desire for personal identity and equality is a force that cannot be denied.