By Montsho Matlala
South Africa: Civil society body, the Men’s Council of South Africa (MENCSA), and a traditional leaders’ organisation have expressed outrage at the recent Constitutional Court (ConCourt) ruling allowing husbands to adopt their wives’ surnames if they wish.
Many traditional leaders and community members have described the judgment as an attack on the values and dignity of African culture and heritage.
MENCSA president Fikile Dyantji said the ruling was a direct challenge to the authority of men and traditional leaders as heads of families and guardians of cultural traditions.
MENCSA also noted that the timing of the ruling was questionable, as it came during Heritage Month. The organisation has called on people to rise up and challenge what it termed the “ConCourt surnames saga.”
“We appeal to all civil society organisations, traditional leaders, and individuals who share our concerns to join hands with MENCSA in challenging this ruling. Together we can ensure that our cultural heritage and traditional values are respected and preserved,” said Dyantji.
“We believe this ruling is unconstitutional and undermines the rights of African communities to preserve their cultural heritage,” he emphasised.
The Royal Leaders of South Africa (ROLESA) also expressed dismay at the ConCourt’s judgment.
“As royal families, like any other families, we maintain genealogical records through the family tree, where people are identified by their clans through their fathers’ names and surnames,” explained ROLESA secretary-general, Kgošigadi Moremadi Mothapo.
“Should this ruling be applied universally, imagine a Phaahla king marrying a Chikalanga, then adopting the wife’s surname and vice versa — how will he be recognised? It is even more complicated in polygamous marriages. Whose surname will the man take? Let us continue to name according to our African culture,” Mothapo advised.
ROLESA said it would present the issue to a meeting of traditional leaders in Limpopo next week to seek resolutions rejecting the apex court’s judgment.
The ConCourt’s judgment stated that the law was discriminatory against men on the basis of gender, as it allowed wives to adopt their husbands’ surnames but barred men from doing the same.
See social media reactions below:
