Saudi Arabia Executes Two Bangladeshi Nationals

On October 13, Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court set aside the death sentence of Sri Lankan migrant worker Anojan Sivarasa. Sivarasa had been sentenced to death over a Facebook post deemed insulting to Prophet Muhammad and blasphemous against Islam.

The following day, Saudi authorities executed two Bangladeshis, Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Suety Akhter (Sweety Akhtar, according to family), in the holy city of Makkah. According to their families, both had moved to Saudi Arabia for work nearly four years earlier. They had been convicted of what Saudi authorities described as an “immoral act” inside a mosque.

The two cases put Bangladesh’s protection of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia under scrutiny. Sri Lanka organized legal and diplomatic support for Sivarasa, winning a reprieve for its citizen. Bangladesh said it learned of the execution of its nationals only after it happened.

Sri Lanka’s success does not mean Bangladesh could have secured the same outcome; the allegations in the two cases were different. But the fact that Dhaka claimed not to know about the sentences until it was too late to intervene is concerning.

Saudi authorities described the death sentences of the Bangladeshis as ta’zir, a discretionary punishment, and said judicial review and a royal order preceded execution. The public statement did not explain the precise “immoral act,” identify the mosque, or disclose the arrest dates.

What evidence supported the conviction of the two Bangladeshis? Did the defendants have lawyers and interpreters? Could they understand the proceedings and challenge the charges?

Bangladesh’s claims are hard to accept without scrutiny. Media reports said the Bangladesh consulate general in Jeddah had sought prisoner information in September. Saudi authorities supplied a list containing the two names on September 30, but no details of their death sentences.

The Jeddah consulate sent a report to Bangladesh’s Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment on October 18. The Daily Star, a Bangladeshi daily, which obtained the report, says that the two Bangladeshis had been detained since August 2023. The list recorded cybercrime allegations against Nazrul and adultery allegations against Akhter.

The report also listed 306 Bangladeshis held in prisons across Saudi Arabia’s western region. Of them, 147 had received sentences ranging from one month to 15 years of jail time.

A Bangladeshi official said the consulate received no requests for assistance from the pair or their family members. Another official said following every case was impossible.

What the government said after the executions has also drawn criticism. Speaking to reporters on October 17, Bangladesh’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shama Obaed Islam described the executions as a lesson for Bangladesh and urged citizens abroad to follow their host countries’ laws. “When a law is violated, there is not much I can do for a Bangladeshi citizen,” she said.

However, Bangladesh could still have sought lawyers’ help and engaged in diplomatic discussions to help the two citizens appeal their sentences.

Did Bangladeshi officials ask for details of the charges or copies of the court records? Were cases that involved potentially severe punishment referred for legal advice? Who was responsible for following the cases? Bangladesh needs to explain what its officials did and when. The claim that the two citizens did not ask for help does not resolve questions about its own consular response.

Sri Lanka’s response shows what Bangladesh could have done. Sivarasa was arrested on July 1. A court initially imposed five years in prison and a fine of 3 million riyals (about $800,000) on him. On September 17, an appeals court increased the punishment to death. Amnesty International said he lacked access to a lawyer before his initial sentencing.

On September 18, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry publicly confirmed that it was pursuing his case through diplomatic channels. Ambassador O. L. Ameer Ajwad visited him in prison on October 8 and provided contact details. A specialist Sri Lankan legal delegation supported the Supreme Court appeal.

The court overturned Sivarasa’s death sentence. That did not guarantee that he would be acquitted or could return home. Media reports also give little detail about why the court ruled in his favor. It is unclear how much the outcome was due to the legal appeal or Sri Lanka’s diplomatic efforts.

Still, Sri Lanka provided legal support, pursued the case through diplomatic channels, and visited its citizen in prison. Bangladesh has yet to provide evidence of comparable efforts in these two cases.

Saudi Arabia also needs to explain what happened. Both countries are parties to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Article 36 requires authorities to inform detained foreigners promptly of their consular rights. If a detainee requests it, the consulate must be notified without delay. Consular officers have the right to visit, communicate, and arrange legal representation.

The convention does not expressly mention a duty to warn an embassy before every execution. Therefore, the absence of an advance warning alone cannot establish that Article 36 was breached. Even so, Saudi authorities could have taken greater care to inform Bangladesh of the death sentences while there was still time to seek legal help. Saudi authorities need to explain what the prisoners were told about contacting the Bangladeshi consulate. They also need to clarify what happened to any requests for help, and if consular officials were allowed to visit.

Bangladesh has strong reasons to preserve relations with Riyadh. More than 3 million Bangladeshis live in the kingdom. Protecting such a large community requires a large consular staff and a system for following serious criminal cases. Officials need to know which prisoners face severe punishment and when legal help is needed. That work cannot depend entirely on prisoners or their families knowing whom to contact.

Sri Lanka’s efforts helped its citizen challenge his death sentence. In Bangladesh’s case, it is still unclear whether officials could have acted in time. The executions have left Bangladesh’s diplomats facing a difficult question about whether they could have done more before they were executed.