Cultural expert Professor Gugu Mazibuko from the University of Johannesburg (UJ) is  angry over a Constitutional Court ruling allowing husbands to adopt their wives’ surnames, saying it disrespects African values and will cause ancestral confusion.

“For me, this ruling is looking down upon African values. Yes, I do understand that there is a ‘can’ in this ruling, which means it’s optional, not compulsory. But we know that we are living in trying times,” Mazibuko said in an interview with IOL News.

She stressed that identity issues are key, particularly in African communities, who, she said, are not enjoying the freedom to maintain their identities and way of life.

“So now, rulings like these come at a time whereby you find that we are trying to restore our identities and our cultures, and then this can be misinterpreted as a must,” she said.

On Thursday, IOL News reported that the centuries-old tradition of wives taking their husbands’ surnames upon marriage is no longer the only option. 

South African husbands are now legally permitted to adopt their wives’ surnames if they choose.

This development followed a ruling by the Constitutional Court in Bloemfontein, where Justice Leona Theron declared parts of the Births and Deaths Registration Act (Act 51 of 1992) unconstitutional, citing gender discrimination.

The ruling came after a constitutional challenge brought by two couples: Jana Jordaan and Henry van der Merwe, and Jess Donnelly-Bornman and Andreas Nicolaas Bornman. 

Van der Merwe was denied the right to adopt his wife’s surname, while Bornman was not allowed to hyphenate his surname to include his wife’s. 

The couples argued that these restrictions were based on outdated gender roles and infringed upon the Constitution’s guarantee of equality.

The Bloemfontein High Court had earlier ruled in their favour, directing the Department of Home Affairs to amend the affected records. 

The Constitutional Court has now confirmed that ruling.

Despite some celebrating the ruling as a progressive step, Mazibuko said she was concerned.

“Well, people cannot react the same way, and I think we need to respect that, because this is a democratic South Africa, a multicultural society. But at the same time, let us not forget that this is African soil. So the decisions that are being taken, they will have a huge impact,” she said.

“They will change how things are done in the African way, you know. Because we are now adopting everything that is taking place in other Western parts of the world.”

Social media has been flooded with mixed reactions. 

While some welcomed the move, others voiced concerns that it would interfere with the cultural practice of paying  lobola.”

Lobola is a traditional bride price custom in many African cultures, where women typically adopt their husband’s surname after marriage.

Some expressed feeling disrespected or culturally undermined.

Mazibuko explained that, in her own life, although she changed her surname after marriage, her maiden name remained culturally significant.

“I cannot say men are being undermined, because, you know, my maiden name is Khathi, and I was married to Mazibuko. So when I got married there, my maiden name is always mentioned, because I’m referred to as Makhathi, by the way,” she said.

“I haven’t lost my identity…But when it comes to the family that I’m married to, my children, myself, I was introduced to the ancestors with certain rituals, and my children too. And their lineage is now tied to the Mazibuko family tree.”

Mazibuko argued that using the wife’s surname instead may cause “ancestral confusion”.

“All these things will have to be introduced to the first ancestor, the one whose name is used as a clan name, you know. There will be a lot of confusion.”

Asked what the ruling means for the practice of lobola, Mazibuko said that the concept, as it exists today, was heavily influenced by colonial rule.

“We cannot talk about lobola because even lobola was – the practice was imposed by St Theophilus Shepstone, who was then governor of Natal,” she said.

“In our culture, lobola was not something that you had to quantify in crowns or money. It was about relationships – bringing two families together. These crowns were introduced and imposed by colonial structures. So now this is a continuation of the colonial legacy.”

Mazibuko said the ruling could lead to tension within families and confusion around family lineage.

“What I can predict is that I foresee challenges with our children and our grandchildren. Some of them take these things as a fashion, and that fashion is going to affect the family histories,” she said.

“They will now discuss with their girlfriends that, ‘Okay, you’re going to take my surname,’ and they agree. Then, when it comes to us as parents, we say, ‘No way, that can never happen.’ And then there’ll be a clash – tensions in families.”

In African cultural marriages, the mother and children typically adopt the husband’s surname.

“This raises the question, whose surname will they be using going forward?” she added.

Mazikuko added that the situation could become even more complex in polygamous families.

“Think of a polygamous family – whose surname will be used in the homestead? Is it the first wife’s? Or if the first wife uses the husband’s surname, but the second wife insists he use hers – then what happens? It creates problems.”

Mazibuko also criticised the lack of consultation in the decision-making process.

“How can you pass a decision that covers everyone in the country without proper consultation and public participation? It’s a huge problem,” she said.

She warned that although the ruling is technically optional, it could be misinterpreted and have far-reaching consequences.

“We can take it easy and say it’s a ‘can’, it’s optional, but that ‘can’ can be misinterpreted. And that can change everything.”

“Maybe because of these individualistic approaches, communal values are being undermined. Sometimes you think for two or four people, and you make a decision that’s going to affect the masses.”

Mazibuko said she was in support of those who are angry over the ruling.

“I’m fuming too, but my colleagues who support it…I don’t blame them. It’s their own choice. But I’m fuming.”

simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za

IOL News

Source link