Landmark ruling challenges patriarchy in lobola practices

A recent judgment scrutinises lobola rules, revealing the tensions between cultural traditions, statutory law and women's rights, and emphasising the need for constitutional alignment

- By Tebogo Khaas

The recent Constitutional Court ruling allowing men to adopt their wives' last names has ignited a lively and, at times, uncomfortable debate about the practice of lobola - with implications few may have really anticipated.

This judgment has set the proverbial cat among the pigeons, particularly in black communities where marriage, custom and identity remain deeply interwoven. Let me explain.

Under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, lobola is recognised as a central customary practice that entails the exchange of property between families. Although lobola in itself does not constitute marriage, it is an essential prerequisite for a customary marriage to be deemed valid.

In terms of the act, lobola is defined as "property, whether in cash or in kind, that a prospective husband or the head of his family undertakes to provide to the head of the prospective wife's family in consideration of a customary marriage".

In practice, the "deemed value" of the prospective wife assessed in property terms rather than personhood determines the quantum of the exchange, often subjectively measured in cattle or, as is common nowadays, in cash.

This transactional character which, in effect, attaches a negotiable worth to a woman has long sparked debate. Some view it as a meaningful cultural expression that binds two families together, whereas others criticise it as a commodification of women that reduces their agency and reinforces patriarchal norms.