What’s in a name? Dismantling patriarchy, advancing equality and reclaiming identity in Jordaan v Minister of Home Affairs

This article interrogates the South African Constitutional Court’s landmark judgment invalidating provisions of the Births and Deaths Act that entrenched gendered surname practices. Historically rooted in Roman-Dutch law, English common law and colonial administration, these provisions reflected an ideological disposition that women could change surnames upon marriage, divorce or widowhood, while men could not. The result was the privileging of the husband’s surname as the natural marker of family identity. The Court was called upon to determine whether such laws infringed equality and dignity through a constitutional challenge by two couples. In confirming the High Court’s declaration of invalidity, the Constitutional Court held that the provisions unfairly discriminated on the basis of gender, perpetuated patriarchal hierarchies and undermined self-identity. Importantly, the Court acknowledged that while patriarchy privileged men’s surnames, it simultaneously constrained men’s autonomy by denying them equivalent choices. The judgment is situated within South Africa’s broader substantive equality jurisprudence. It emphasises dignity as the constitutional thread linking naming, self-expression and familial belonging. By engaging comparative and international law, the Court also aligned South Africa with a global movement against patriarchal naming conventions. Ultimately, the case demonstrates that names are not trivial: They carry the weight of history, culture and power. This article, thus, through analysis and conclusion, presents Jordaan as a transformative step in dismantling patriarchy, affirming equality and reclaiming identity in democratic South Africa.