Two Bangladeshis executed in Saudi Arabia: Why did Bangladesh’s consulate fail to act?

Two Bangladeshis have been executed in Saudi Arabia. But did the diplomatic representatives of their home country know that their lives were at stake? More surprisingly, the Bangladeshi consulate learnt of the allegations against the two prisoners only two weeks before their executions. Yet no effective last-minute intervention appears to have been made to save them. Why?

The execution of the two Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia is not merely a criminal justice issue. It raises serious questions about punishment in the name of religious morality, the right to a fair trial, the protection of migrant workers abroad and a possible failure of Bangladesh’s diplomatic system.

But why were the two Bangladeshis subjected to such a severe punishment? What had they done?

According to an official statement issued by the Saudi government, two Bangladeshi nationals were executed in Mecca on 14 October. Saudi authorities alleged that they had engaged in ‘immoral acts’ inside a mosque in Mecca, thereby violating the sanctity of the place.

However, the list of prisoners received by the Bangladesh Consulate in Jeddah contained different information. It recorded allegations of information technology or cybercrime against the male Bangladeshi national, Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir. The female Bangladeshi national, Sweety Akhtar, was accused of zina, or extramarital sexual relations. Both had been working as cleaners in Saudi Arabia and had been in detention since August 2023.

This is where an important question arises. The consulate’s records listed separate allegations, while the Saudi Ministry of Interior’s statement referred to ‘immoral acts’ inside a mosque. The precise relationship between these two accounts, the actual circumstances of the case and the evidence used to convict the pair remain unclear.

But why were they sentenced to death?

Saudi Arabia’s judicial system draws on interpretations of Sharia law and also allows judges discretion in determining certain punishments. Saudi authorities described the executions of the two Bangladeshis as ta'zir, a category of discretionary punishment. Without access to the specific legal grounds of the case and the full court judgment, however, it is impossible to understand the complete reasoning behind the death sentences.

Human Rights Watch has criticised Saudi Arabia’s criminalisation of extramarital relationships and the punishments imposed in such cases. According to the organisation, punishing consensual relationships between adults violates international human rights standards.

The distinction between religious belief and state-imposed punishment is important here. Freedom of religion is a human right. But when religious interpretations are used to justify taking human lives, people must also have the right to question the system. Can the argument of protecting the sanctity of a place outweigh a person's right to life? Is the death penalty the only possible response to an alleged offence?

This is not merely a question of religious fundamentalism. It is also about the limits of state power and the protection of human rights. It is essential to ask difficult questions about whether such punishments can be justified in the name of religion. Once an execution has been carried out, no remedy can fully compensate for a wrongful conviction or the denial of an opportunity to defend oneself.

Why did Bangladesh fail to find out in time?

One of the most disturbing aspects of this case is the apparent lack of timely information. According to reports by BBC Bangla and Bangladeshi media outlets, the Bangladesh Consulate in Jeddah received a list of Bangladeshi nationals detained in prisons across Saudi Arabia’s western region on 30 September. The list included the names of the two individuals and the allegations against them. However, a letter from the consulate stated that their names were not accompanied by any information about death sentences. The matter came to light after Saudi media reported the executions on 14 October.

In other words, it would be incorrect to say that Bangladeshi authorities knew nothing about the two prisoners. The consulate had received their names, dates of detention, prison locations and details of the allegations against them. However, the consulate maintained that it had not been informed of their death sentences. This raises questions about Bangladesh’s own responsibilities.

Former ambassador Nasim Ferdous told BBC Bangla that the consulate should have acted more promptly after learning about the allegations.

The consulate, meanwhile, maintained that Saudi authorities had provided no formal or informal advance notification of the executions. The list of prisoners had also made no mention of their sentences. The consulate further stated that neither family had contacted it to seek legal assistance.

Even so, questions remain. After discovering allegations of zina and cybercrime in the list, why did the consulate not urgently seek information about the court judgments and possible sentences? Why was the legal status of the two prisoners not verified, along with the possibility of providing them with assistance? Should a country's responsibility to protect its citizens working abroad depend entirely on their families submitting a request for help?

Questions must also be asked about the role of the Saudi authorities. Bangladeshi officials have said that their country's diplomatic representatives were not informed of the executions in advance.

However, the legal position regarding consular notification requires careful examination. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides for communication between detained foreign nationals and their consular representatives, as well as notification of the consulate upon the detained person's request. Further documentation and legal analysis are needed to establish how these rights were exercised in this particular case, whether the prisoners requested consular assistance and whether any legal obligations were breached.

When a state's judicial system invokes religion to impose the death penalty over matters involving private life and alleged moral offences, questioning that system is not an act of opposition to religion. It is an assertion of the importance of the right to life.

Standing against religious fundamentalism and in defence of human rights means refusing to accept any allegation as the truth without proper judicial scrutiny. It also means refusing to place cruel punishments beyond question simply because they are justified in the name of religious or state authority.