Cape Town - A high court battle is looming between a Muslim couple and the organisation that issues visas to Saudi Arabia for the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The couple from Surrey Estate, who claim they have been denied the opportunity to go on Hajj, are taking the SA Hajj and Umrah Council (Sahuc) to court.
Achmat Abrahams and his wife Aziza Richards were first granted permission to go to Mecca, but it was withdrawn when Sahuc accused them of lying on their application.
The couple are asking the South Gauteng High Court to declare their contract valid and to order the director of public prosecutions, who they have named as the second respondent, to investigate allegations of corruption against Sahuc.
When they were told they would be going to Mecca, Richards sold a gold Kruger rand to help fund the trip. Packages range from R35 000 to up to R100 000 and the couple settled on the least expensive option.
On September 5, two weeks before they were due to fly to Mecca, Sahuc phoned them and told them their accreditation had been rescinded, accusing them of lying, claiming they had not disclosed that they had been on Hajj before. Both Abrahams and Richards had gone 20 years ago with their then spouses.
One of the criteria for allowing people to go on Hajj was that they should not have gone before, Sahuc president Hashim Salie said on Thursday.
But according to Sahuc’s website, people can apply if they have not been on pilgrimage in the past five years, but they would be scored accordingly.
The couple denied that they lied, saying they were told by a representative from Sahuc that they still qualified as their trips had been 20 years ago.
A tearful Richards said on Thursday she was defending her honour as she had been accused of lying.
The couple were meant to go for six weeks and would have celebrated Richards’ birthday in Mecca.
They are two of 11 000 SA Muslims wanting to go on Hajj, but only about 2 500 visas were issued this year.
Salie said they had not yet been served with the papers but they would be defending the court action.
Sahuc has come under fire from several organisations over the years.
Imraahn Ismail-Mukaddam of the National Consumer Forum said they were inundated with complaints and had now gone to the public protector to investigate claims of corruption, nepotism and cronyism.
“It is the responsibility of the government to negotiate with another government, not for an NGO to do so,” he said.
“We will be using this court case as a basis on which we can finally get clarity on their role regarding their legitimacy and their procedures.”
He said pilgrims often complained that travel agencies did not live up to their side of the bargain.
“People are not given a breakdown of their costs - this goes against the Consumer Protection Act.
Hajj Watch chairman Jakes Rawat said better regulation was needed.
“Sahuc needs to take care of the pilgrims, not only be there for what the operators [travel agents] want. They need protection, and the government should be doing that,” he said.
Rawat said there was also no clear procedures for how Sahuc decided on who would get visas.
Cape Argus