Winning gender equality in court means little if patriarchal administrative systems refuse to update their systems at the counter.
 

Author:

G Mandisodza
 

Summary:

In Jordaan v Minister of Home Affairs (2025), the Constitutional Court struck down gender-biased surname laws, giving men the automatic legal right to assume their spouse’s surname upon marriage. Although welcomed as a step towards gender equality, this study examines why the ruling struggles to produce meaningful change in everyday administrative settings. Using street-level bureaucracy theory and transformative constitutionalism, the article analyses the gap between constitutional judgments and public administration at the Department of Home Affairs. It shows how the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992 continues to reinforce administrative bias. By requiring citizens to follow narrow, Western nuclear naming structures within the National Population Register, state databases conflict with the flexible, multigenerational naming systems recognised in customary law. As a result, indigenous family naming traditions are sidelined, and gender-neutral rights are hindered at the service counter. The article critiques the court’s narrow approach to legal remedies, arguing that judicial decisions which fail to address institutional infrastructure leave practical obstacles intact. To deliver genuine equality, the article recommends administrative reform, the updating of population databases, and targeted training for frontline officials to ensure civil administration reflects cultural diversity and constitutional rights.


Link to Journal article