The execution of two Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia over alleged “immoral acts” at a mosque in Makkah has raised a question beyond the deaths themselves: can Dhaka defend its lack of knowledge when its citizens face capital punishment abroad?
After Saudi authorities announced the executions, Bangladesh said its mission had not been informed about the trial or the carrying out of the sentences.
It sought details from Riyadh through diplomatic correspondence. Five days after the executions, Foreign Ministry Secretary for Bilateral Affairs Nazrul Islam summoned Saudi Ambassador Abdullah bin Zafar bin Abiyah in Dhaka on Monday and handed him a copy of the earlier letter.
Golam Moshi, a former Bangladesh ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said the case should have been on the mission’s radar.
“I was very surprised that such a serious case could go unnoticed. The decision was not made in a day; the process continued over a period,” he said.
“It should certainly have been known. How could it have remained outside their knowledge? That is not possible. That was how things worked during my time.”
Tasneem Siddiqui, executive director of the Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU), said a lack of notification could not absolve the mission of responsibility.
“Knowing is my responsibility; it is part of my job, isn’t it?” she said. “These matters need much closer monitoring and much greater awareness.”
What Happened, and What the Government Says
The Saudi Press Agency reported last Wednesday that a Bangladeshi woman and a man had been executed over alleged “immoral acts” at a mosque in Makkah.
Bangladesh’s Jeddah consulate subsequently wrote to the Saudi foreign ministry, seeking details.
Officials from the foreign ministry and consulate said the letter was sent on Thursday, but declined to be named.
A consular official said on Friday that Saudi authorities had sent no notification, diplomatic note or other information about either person’s trial or execution.
On Saturday, State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shama Obaed Islam told reporters the government had received no official information and had written to Saudi Arabia to establish what happened.
“We have not yet received any official information. We have written to obtain the news and learn what actually happened, the details, when they went to work and their identities,” she said.
“We know their names, but we need to know how long they had been working there, who their employer was and what the circumstances were.”
Obaed called the executions unfortunate but said Saudi law applied in Saudi Arabia.
When a law was broken, she said, Bangladesh had limited scope to intervene, just as foreign nationals who broke Bangladeshi law would face the country’s legal system.
She described the case as a lesson, adding that the government hoped not to receive such news again.
One of the executed Bangladeshis was a 25-year-old man from Brahmanbaria, the eldest of four siblings.
His father had worked in Saudi Arabia for about 24 years before returning home in 2020 to farm.
The son travelled to Saudi Arabia two years later and, according to his family, worked as a cleaner at the Grand Mosque in Makkah.
Police arrested him eight months after his arrival. His family learned of the arrest about a month later. He remained in prison and was sometimes able to speak to his parents by phone.
Officials from the foreign ministry and Jeddah consulate said the names of both Bangladeshis appeared on a list of detained people, but were not readily identifiable among thousands of entries.
One official said Saudi Arabia had supplied a list of about 2,500 detainees in September after the mission requested one.
“In the trial column, one person’s entry said adultery and the other said ICT. But nothing was written in the verdict column,” the official said.
The list did not indicate that the cases had reached verdicts or that executions were imminent.
“This has become news around the world, and it must be taken seriously,” Moshi said.
He urged missions to scrutinise lists for grave cases even when staffing was inadequate, and said capital cases should not be left solely to labour-wing officials. Heads of mission should oversee them.
Could Bangladesh Have Helped?
The executions have also raised the question of whether Bangladesh could have done anything had it known about the proceedings earlier.
Observers have pointed to the case of Sri Lankan national Anojan Sivasar, whose death sentence in Saudi Arabia was reduced by the Supreme Court last Wednesday.
Sivasar had been accused of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in a Facebook post.
In September, a trial court sentenced him to five years in prison and a fine.
Saudi prosecutors later appealed under Sharia law rather than the cybercrime law, and a death sentence followed.
The ruling triggered a strong reaction in Sri Lanka and prompted its government to pursue legal action.
Siddiqui, however, said legal representation might not have overturned the sentences under Saudi law.
The allegations involved conduct inside a mosque, where the authorities would be unlikely to make an exception to their legal framework.
“It is unfortunate that the embassy was not involved in appointing a lawyer to defend them,” she said.
“But the punishment under their system could not have been reversed. The Bangladesh government could not have reversed it. There could, however, have been sympathy and support.”
Moshi described Saudi Arabia’s judicial system as strict but transparent and impartial.
During his tenure, he said, capital cases were examined by several judges, and a dissenting judge could send a case to another court.
A unanimous decision was required before a sentence could be imposed.
“When there was a capital punishment case in my time, seven judges examined it. If even one disagreed, it went to a new court. Only when everyone agreed was a verdict delivered,” he said. “Their judicial system is very transparent, neutral and fair.”
Siddiqui said Bangladesh needed a formal system to ensure every case received attention and to prevent other migrant workers from facing similar circumstances.
She suggested studying Sri Lanka’s response and India’s practice of organising long-term migrants into associations that help monitor workers’ welfare under embassy oversight.
“Service depends entirely on the individual in charge. There is no proper institutional mechanism,” she said.
“If 30 cases arrive today, there is no system for reviewing all 30 and deciding which requires action. We need an institutional mechanism that makes this possible.”
For Siddiqui, the episode exposes a wider weakness: protection for migrant workers still depends too much on individual initiative, rather than a system to follow every case closely.