Farzana Rahim, a social worker from Cape Town who has dedicated nearly two decades to social services, encountered an unexpected obstacle while attempting to legally obtain a firearm license. She did not anticipate that her religious head covering—the hijab—would become the most difficult part of the permit acquisition process.
Rahim spent about fifteen years working in the provincial government before moving to a local non-governmental organization focused on child protection seven years ago. Her application for a weapon license was reportedly rejected because she was wearing a hijab in the photo submitted with the application. The photograph was subsequently blurred to protect her identity.
Her professional work involves removing children from families, which, according to her, increasingly puts social workers in dangerous situations. Rahim reported participating in two incidents during child removal cases in recent years: in one, she and her staff had to become hostages in an office.
These experiences, along with the rising number of attacks on social workers and other public-facing employees, convinced her to apply for a weapon for self-defense. Rahim emphasized that this decision was not made lightly.
She noted that she grew up and lived in families where weapons were commonplace; her father held a weapon license, and her husband, with whom she has been married for 24 years, has also held a license since he was eighteen. However, she distinguished between being comfortable with firearms and deciding to own and shoot them, stating that the circumstances compelled her to take this step.
Preparation for the process began in 2023 when she acquired the necessary training materials. She later completed the prescribed training at a weapons training center and received a certificate for control, handling, and shooting of weapons. The cost of training and materials amounted to approximately 1700 Rand.
She then proceeded with the competency assessment procedure at SAPS, providing training certificates and paying the required fees at the local police station. For the license application itself, Rahim was required to first acquire a weapon and provide details about it, including caliber and purpose, within her justification concerning self-defense.
When submitting the application at the local police station in February 2026, Rahim provided more information about her personal situation, including crime statistics, materials related to her work, and information from a parliamentary session concerning attacks on social workers.
It was at the SAPS office that she first learned that wearing a hijab in the application photo could cause problems. A police officer informed her that they might refuse to accept the application because of the hijab. Rahim initially laughed, assuming it was a joke, but was advised to seek a letter from a local mufti explaining why she, as a Muslim woman, wore a hijab.
After receiving such a letter, she continued the process. Her husband used an application that allowed tracking the application's progress to the national SAPS office. By early July, the application was still not finalized, exceeding the standard 120-day waiting period.
Later, at the end of July, her husband informed her about the issue and a note regarding missing documents, although she was certain she had provided everything necessary. He was advised to contact the designated weapons officer at her local SAPS branch. Upon checking, it was found that the application status was 'under correspondence,' which was unclear to both her and the officer.
Rahim decided to visit the provincial office for clarification. After recounting her story, the provincial officer noted that the situation seemed familiar and informed her that her application had been returned. Upon checking the file, there was a large red cross next to her photograph. She was told the rejection was due to the hijab. Rahim expressed disagreement, as her face was completely uncovered in the submitted photograph, without sunglasses or other obstructions.
The officer responded that such things happen and advised her to 'just wear a wig' or use artificial intelligence. Rahim was shocked, as she believes that if she passes by someone without a veil, people will not recognize her. She stressed that using a wig or AI does not reflect her true identity, especially considering that her passport, ID, and driver's license contain photos taken while wearing a hijab.
Since then, Rahim has submitted an affidavit to the national SAPS office, requesting a written explanation for the red cross next to her photograph and the reasons for the delay. As of publication, she has not yet received an official response. Rahim added that this dispute has turned into a question of religious freedom and equal treatment. National SAPS made no comments at the time of publication.
The newly appointed Western Cape Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Sizakhele Dyanty, is expected to answer parliamentary questions regarding the number of individuals whose weapon license applications were rejected because they wore religious head coverings (hijabs) in their photographs.
The questions will be raised by DA party member Nicholas Gotswell, who serves on the Portfolio Committee on Police. The situation arose after the application for a weapon license submitted by Farzana Rahman, a resident of Parow, was allegedly declined because she was wearing a hijab in the accompanying photograph.
Rahman, who worked as a social worker for 15 years in the provincial government and now works for a local NGO in the same capacity, has been a victim of crime in recent years. She applied for the license for personal protection.
A representative from the Western Cape Police, F.S. van Wyk, stated that the national police are best suited to respond to media inquiries. However, the national SAPS media office has not yet provided a response.
Farzana Rahman's application from Parow was rejected due to her wearing a hijab in the photograph. Rahman expressed her feeling of distress over the continued existence of religious discrimination in modern times.
Nicholas Gotswell noted in his parliamentary question that a similar case was raised five years ago, when a woman appealed the decision and won the case. He asked SAPS whether they have a national policy, directive, or established guideline regulating the inclusion of religious head coverings in photographs submitted with applications for competency certificates and weapon licenses, and if so, what the relevant provisions are.
Furthermore, Gotswell requested information on whether any applications for competency certificates or weapon licenses have been detained, returned, or rejected since March 5, 2021, because the applicant was wearing a religious head covering in the photograph, despite the applicant's face being fully visible. He demanded clarification on the reasons for such decisions, their outcomes, and the duration of delays.
The deputy also inquired about the legal, regulatory, or political basis that allows for a different standard to be applied to photographs submitted for weapon license applications compared to the standards used by the Department of Home Affairs for South African Smart ID and passport applications. He further asked whether the provincial commissioner is aware of recent instances where a weapon license application was approved, but the license could not be issued due to the rejection of an accompanying photograph showing a religious head covering, and what steps will be taken to prevent such situations.
