Emaswati are not keen on adopting the recent South African Constitutional Court ruling that allows men to assume their wives’ surnames after marriage.
The ruling has been viewed by a majority of Emaswati, especially men, as a move that is incompatible with deep-rooted cultural values.
Handed down by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on August 28, the ruling declared it unconstitutional to restrict married men from taking their wives’ surnames. Prior to this, men had to undergo a costly and cumbersome legal process to effect the change, unlike women, who could simply adopt their husbands’ surnames after marriage.
The court ruled that this disparity violated the right to equality and dignity, and affirmed that both spouses should have the equal choice to adopt each other’s surnames.
Resistance in Eswatini
In Eswatini, the ruling has sparked a wave of resistance, particularly among men, with many taking to social media to express disapproval, often citing cultural, spiritual and familial identity concerns.
On Facebook, Mduduzi Sabz Nxumalo put it plainly:
“We are not Europeans or Indians. I paid lobola, so I won’t follow my wife and be called by her surname at home.”
For others, the principle of lineage preservation was paramount. John Machawe Kunene stated:
“The reason we have wives is for them to continue our surnames, by giving us sons, who will also take wives and continue the surnames.”
The topic of lobola (bride price) came up frequently, often with humorous undertones. “It means a woman must pay lobola for the man now,” joked Pat Dlamini, while Melusi Lee Thwala asked pointedly, “Will she also pay lobola?”
Fears of Cultural Erosion
Beyond humour, the ruling was seen by many as a sign of cultural erosion.
One user wrote:
“Our cultures are under attack by Roman-Dutch law. Imagine being in a polygamous marriage and having to take all your wives’ surnames — total madness.”
Another user, Jonasi Bones, said:
“We have our cultures and norms — they guide us and make us who we are.”
Patricia Dludlu drew a firm boundary:
“Keep your South Africa and we shall keep our Eswatini laws, traditional values, and customs.”
Others raised practical concerns, particularly about children’s identities and ancestral ties.
“Which surname will the kids take?” asked Melo Wematfombeni.
Makho Polo warned that the ruling could kill heritage and legacies, while another user explained that surnames were a spiritual connection to ancestors:
“Changing this disrupts the very fabric of society. Our traditions must be preserved.”
Minority Voices of Support
That said, a minority expressed support or at least neutrality toward the ruling.
Thembela Gulwako wrote:
“I find nothing wrong with taking your wife’s surname too.”
Bheki BV clarified:
“This law simply gives men the choice — it’s not compulsory.”
Still, even among those open to the idea, the dominant tone was one of disbelief or comic relief.
“That’s inappropriate… Like really???? I really can’t,” wrote Ncedo Dlamini, summing up the bewilderment many felt.
Tradition vs Modern Law
While South Africa has been praised internationally for its progressive constitution, the reaction in Eswatini highlights the tension between modern legal reforms and long-standing cultural practices.
For many Emaswati, surnames are not merely bureaucratic identifiers; they are a living link to heritage, family pride and spiritual identity.
