Saudi Arabia has executed a woman and a man, allegedly for ‘immoral acts’ in a mosque in Mecca. Yet, there are no clear answers to questions such as what crime they committed, how long the trial lasted, or how much opportunity they had to defend themselves. More surprisingly, the Bangladesh Consulate in Jeddah claims it knew nothing before the execution took place. This raises the question: Was this a punishment delivered through a transparent judicial process, or an instance of harsh state power where the possibilities for saving the lives of two foreign nationals were not adequately considered?
On Wednesday (October 14), Nazerul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akthar were executed in Saudi Arabia’s Mecca region. The Saudi Interior Ministry identified them as Bangladeshi citizens.
According to the Saudi authorities’ statement, they were involved in an ‘immoral act’ inside a mosque in Mecca. Charges were brought against them after investigation. The court ruled that the charges were proven and sentenced them to death under the ‘Ta’zir’ provision of Islamic law. The sentences were carried out after approval from relevant authorities and a royal decree.
However, the specific details of the crime, which led to such a severe punishment, have not been disclosed. Information such as which mosque the incident occurred in, what kind of behavior was considered a crime, or when the accused were arrested, remains unclear.
Saudi Arabia is an independent and sovereign state. Foreign nationals residing in the country are obligated to abide by local laws. Therefore, if a Bangladeshi citizen commits a crime in Saudi Arabia, the country’s courts can try them. The judicial jurisdiction of a state in this regard is also recognized under international law.
But the right to judge and the acceptability of imposing any degree of punishment for any crime are not the same thing.
Maintaining the sanctity of a mosque is undoubtedly important. If a crime is committed in a religious place, there may be legal remedies for it. But the question is, what was the nature of the alleged crime, and why was the death penalty considered necessary?
Saudi authorities stated that the court handed down the punishment under ‘Ta’zir’. In Islamic jurisprudence, ‘Ta’zir’ refers to a punishment where the type and severity are left to judicial discretion.
It is crucial to know what the basis for that discretion was, whether the court considered any alternative punishments, and how the proportionality between the crime and the death penalty was determined.
According to UN human rights standards, even in countries where the death penalty is retained, it should be limited to only the most serious crimes. The UN Human Rights Committee’s interpretation primarily relates this limit to extremely grave offenses such as intentional killing.
The statement issued by Saudi Arabia does not contain specific information about such a crime that would allow for determining the consistency of the death penalty with these international standards.
The most alarming aspect of the incident is the role of the Bangladeshi diplomatic mission.
According to The Daily Star’s report, an official from the Bangladesh Consulate in Jeddah stated that Saudi authorities did not inform them prior to the execution. Later, when the news was published in the media, a diplomatic letter or Note Verbale was sent to the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting official information.
As of October 17, the Bangladesh Consulate reported that no official response had been received from the Saudi authorities. Efforts were even underway to verify the identity and nationality of the executed individuals.
Several important questions arise here.
Was the Bangladesh mission ever informed about the case of the two individuals after their arrest? Did the accused request consular assistance? Was there an opportunity to appoint a lawyer on their behalf? Was an interpreter provided during the trial? Did their family members know about the case?
No reliable answers to these questions have yet been publicly disclosed.
According to Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, when a foreign national is detained, they must be informed of their right to communicate with their consulate. The Convention also stipulates that if the detained person requests it, their country’s consulate must be notified.
However, this Convention does not contain a clear provision mandating advance notification to the relevant embassy before every execution. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that international law was violated solely because of the lack of advance notice.
But whether the consular rights of the detained individuals were ensured is certainly an issue that warrants investigation.
When a Bangladeshi citizen is accused of a crime abroad, the Bangladesh government cannot nullify the judicial authority of the respective country’s courts. However, it can leverage diplomatic communication, legal assistance, humanitarian appeals, and, where applicable, opportunities for clemency.
Recently, international media reported on the diplomatic and legal efforts of the Sri Lankan government in the case of its citizen, Anoj Sivarasar, who faced the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Reports indicated that the Saudi Supreme Court overturned a death sentence that had been issued based on a Facebook comment.
Of course, the charges, legal basis, and judicial circumstances of the two cases are not identical. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the same outcome would have been achieved for the two Bangladeshi citizens just because the death penalty was overturned in the Sri Lankan case.
Nevertheless, the incident brings forward an important question: Did Bangladesh attempt all kinds of legal and diplomatic assistance for its citizens in time?
The contribution of expatriate workers to Bangladesh’s economy is extremely important. By sending huge amounts of foreign currency every year, they play a role in maintaining the country’s economic stability.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, is one of Bangladesh’s largest labor markets. A large number of Bangladeshis are employed there. Their labor contributes to various sectors, including construction, cleaning, transportation, domestic work, and services.
Government institutions such as the Wage Earners’ Welfare Board work for the welfare of Bangladeshis going abroad for employment. These institutions are also responsible for providing legal assistance, support in times of crisis, and necessary welfare services to expatriate workers.
But the claim that the relevant Bangladeshi mission had no prior knowledge of such a serious case involving the death penalty for two citizens raises questions about the effectiveness of the expatriate protection system.
It is unacceptable for the state to only expect remittances from expatriate workers while failing to guarantee adequate initiatives for the protection of their lives and legal rights.
A court delivered a verdict, higher authorities approved it, and the death sentence was carried out by royal decree—this process description has been provided by the Saudi authorities to state their position.
But justice is not just a formal process. It involves the specificity of charges, the admissibility of evidence, the opportunity for self-defense, an impartial trial, and the proportionality of punishment to the crime.
These issues are even more critical, especially in cases of the death penalty, because once this punishment is carried out, there is no opportunity for correction.
Without knowing the exact charges against the two Bangladeshis, there is no scope to declare them innocent. Similarly, based on the published information, it cannot be definitively said that their death sentences met international standards of justice.
Saudi authorities should disclose full judicial information and provide the case files to the Bangladesh government.
On the other hand, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare should inform whether any information was received earlier regarding the arrest, trial, and execution of these two individuals, and what kind of assistance was provided for them.
Foreign nationals are obliged to obey the laws of Saudi Arabia. But there is also a right to question the transparency and fairness in the application of those laws.
Similarly, while the Bangladesh government cannot directly nullify Saudi judicial decisions, it cannot evade its responsibility to take initiatives to protect the legal and consular rights of its citizens.
The execution of two individuals in Mecca is no longer just a criminal case. It has raised significant questions about the safety of Bangladeshi citizens abroad, diplomatic capability, and the justice of irreversible punishment like the death penalty.
Saudi Arabia must explain exactly what crime led to the death penalty for the two individuals. And Bangladesh must explain what was done to utilize potential legal and diplomatic opportunities to save their lives.
Until credible answers to these two questions are provided, the debate will persist: Was this a proper application of justice, or a harsh display of state power where the lives and rights of two foreign nationals were not adequately considered?
The execution of two Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia has sparked widespread criticism and anger on social media. The criticism centers not only on the decision of the death penalty but also on the transparency of the Saudi judicial system, the rights of foreign workers, and the diplomatic role of the Bangladesh government.
Questions have arisen regarding the extent of assurance for fair trial, self-defense, and humanitarian consideration for Bangladeshis who have contributed to Saudi Arabia’s economy for years in construction, cleaning, transportation, services, and other sectors.
There is no denying the contribution of Bangladeshi workers to the economic development of Saudi Arabia. They work in various sectors of the country under harsh weather conditions, long working hours, and staying away from their families for years. Simultaneously, their remittances strengthen Bangladesh’s economy.
Yet, the lack of full disclosure regarding the crime against two members of this labor force after their execution and the Bangladeshi diplomatic mission’s claim of having no prior knowledge have raised new questions.
On social media, journalist Rajib Azmed expressed his indignation over the incident, questioning the role played by the Bangladesh Embassy and institutions dedicated to expatriate welfare throughout the long process of arrest, investigation, trial, and execution of the two Bangladeshis.
His criticism highlighted issues such as funds collected from expatriates for welfare, the responsibility for legal aid abroad, and the state’s obligation to stand by expatriates in times of danger.
On the other hand, Khandakar Rakib, in his analysis, raised questions about the structural vulnerabilities of migrant workers, the Saudi labor system, and the state’s treatment of foreign nationals. The core message of his statement is that migrant workers, despite their significant contribution to a country’s economy, often find themselves in a weak position regarding the protection of their own rights.
At the heart of these criticisms lies a fundamental question: Will Saudi Arabia only consider Bangladeshi workers as cheap labor, or will it also give equal importance to their lives, dignity, and right to justice?
Of course, foreign nationals who commit crimes in Saudi Arabia must face trial according to the country’s laws. But merely being accused of a crime does not mean losing the right to a fair trial. On the contrary, in the case of ultimate punishment like the death penalty, ensuring a transparent judicial process, effective legal assistance, and proportionality of punishment becomes even more critical.
Here, questions also arise regarding the responsibility of the Bangladesh government. Accountability is needed on how quickly the relevant embassy learns about the arrest of a Bangladeshi citizen abroad, how it ensures their legal rights, and what kind of diplomatic initiatives it takes in death penalty cases.
Most importantly, just as the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia is recognized, the lives and right to justice of Bangladeshi citizens are equally important. No one is claiming to be above the law in exchange for contributing to the economy. The only demand is this: even a foreign worker should receive a full, transparent, and fair trial.
Why should the state not be accountable for the lives and dignity of those whose labor keeps Saudi Arabia’s important economic sectors running?