Migrants under trial abroad, what’s Bangladesh’s duty?

Bangladesh’s laws recognise a right to legal assistance for migrant workers abroad. But what happens when a worker is arrested and prosecuted under another country’s criminal laws? Who decides whether Bangladesh will help, and how?

These questions have surfaced following the execution of two people identified as Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia on October 14.

Speaking on Saturday, State Minister-2 for Foreign Affairs Shama Obaed Islam said there was little she could do when a Bangladeshi citizen violated another country’s laws. She also suggested the executions could serve as a lesson for Bangladeshis overseas.

Bangladesh cannot overturn a foreign court’s judgment. But its own laws provide for assistance to citizens facing difficulties abroad, including migrant workers in detention.

Section 27 of the Overseas Employment and Migrants Act, 2013 recognises the right of migrant workers and victims of migration-related fraud to reasonable legal assistance.

Section 29 refers specifically to migrant workers who are detained, stranded or distressed abroad and provides for assistance from Bangladesh missions. However, the section mainly concerns their right to return home. It does not entitle someone facing criminal proceedings to leave the country where they are being prosecuted.

The Act also provides for Labour Welfare Wings at Bangladesh missions to look after workers’ rights and welfare.

Under Section 8(6) of the Wage Earners’ Welfare Board Act, 2018, the board’s responsibilities include rescuing and repatriating workers facing abuse, illness, injury or other difficulties, as well as providing legal and medical assistance where necessary.

Section 9 provides for special assistance to female migrant workers in specified circumstances. Section 11 allows the Board’s chairperson to take reasonable decisions in emergencies, subject to subsequent approval.

The Legal Aid Services Act, 2000, amended in 2026, assigns the Bangladesh Legal Aid Directorate responsibility under Section 7(1)(e) for taking necessary measures to provide legal assistance, according to need, to expatriate citizens or migrant workers overseas.

Section 7(1)(c) also concerns emergency legal support and advice, while Section 5(4) provides for recommendations on posting legal aid officers at Bangladesh missions.

These provisions cover expatriate citizens as well as migrant workers.

The Wage Earners’ Welfare Board allows applications for legal assistance through district expatriate-welfare offices, District Employment and Manpower Offices or directly to the board. Requests are forwarded to Bangladesh missions or local authorities.

The government’s myGov platform also offers a free application service, with a stated processing time of 20 working days.

But a prisoner may have no way to apply. Families may not know where their relative is detained, or even that an arrest has taken place.

There is also the question of responsibility.

The foreign ministry handles consular matters through Bangladesh missions. The expatriates’ welfare ministry oversees the Welfare Board and Labour Welfare Wings. The Legal Aid Directorate falls under the law ministry.

In this backdrop, who decides whether a prisoner qualifies for legal assistance? Who pays for it? Does a possible death sentence trigger any special procedure?

The publicly available procedures do not provide clear answers.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires a country to inform detained foreign nationals without delay of their right to consular notification.

If a detainee requests it, the authorities must notify the relevant consulate without delay. Consular officers have rights to communicate with and visit detained nationals and arrange legal representation, subject to the Convention’s conditions.

But the Convention does not expressly require advance notification of every death sentence or execution.

A mission may know that someone is imprisoned without knowing that the person faces capital punishment.

Indonesia restricted the deployment of domestic workers to Saudi Arabia after the execution of Ruyati binti Satubi in 2011. In 2015, following two further executions, it imposed wider restrictions on sending domestic and informal-sector workers to 21 Middle Eastern and North African countries.

After Saudi Arabia executed domestic worker Rizana Nafeek in 2013, Sri Lanka raised the minimum age for women seeking domestic employment there from 21 to 25 and announced plans to gradually phase out such placements.

Before her execution, Sri Lanka had arranged an appeal, sought clemency and sent ministerial delegations to Saudi Arabia.

More recently, Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Sri Lankan migrant worker Anojan Sivarasa on October 13, although the case was returned for further proceedings.

Sri Lanka had sent a legal delegation to assist with the appeal. Its foreign minister also told Parliament that the government would bear the legal expenses.

In the two recent Saudi executions, whether the Bangladesh Jeddah consulate had sufficient information or opportunity to intervene remains a separate question.

But the legal question raised by Shama’s remarks is broader than these two executions.

The state minister’s warning about respecting foreign laws addresses the conduct expected of Bangladeshis abroad, but it fails to address the responsibilities Bangladesh has undertaken towards them.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from this case, it is for the government about their legal obligations to the protection of migrant workers as stipulated by given laws.