For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
Two Bangladeshi nationals, Nazrul and Sweety, have recently been handed the maximum penalty in Saudi Arabia on charges of ‘indecent’ and ‘immoral’ conduct. This issue has sparked intense discussion in the Bangladeshi media, particularly on social media. While details were initially scarce, the pieces of the puzzle are gradually coming together. The families of Nazrul and Sweety, who reside in Bangladesh, have been located, and reportedly, they were in regular monthly contact with the pair. Any remaining gaps in information will likely be filled in the coming days. Regardless of what those details may reveal, several key questions continue to circulate among the public: First, did the Saudi government inform Bangladesh about the case? Second, was there anything that the Bangladeshi government, or its embassy, could have done? And third, was the punishment disproportionately severe for the alleged offence?
It remains unclear whether the Saudi government notified Bangladesh about the case. Every Bangladeshi who goes to Saudi Arabia for employment is assigned a local sponsor, known in the local language as a ‘kafeel’. The residence and work permits for each foreign worker are issued under the name of this kafeel. Consequently, if an expatriate worker faces any charges, the kafeel is the first to be notified. In this regard, there appears to be some laxity in Saudi Arabia in complying with the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which stipulates that the consulate or embassy should also be informed. However, based on my long professional experience, I can say that in many instances – often at the request of the accused, and sometimes due to the influence or advice of the kafeel – such information is not shared with the embassy. Notably, although the accused had been in regular contact with their families and confessed to their parents that they were in prison, they never disclosed the nature of the charges or the offences for which they were accused. It is hardly surprising that those accused, who concealed the allegations against them even from their own family members, would also hide them from the embassy. While it is likely that family members eventually learned the truth – particularly Nazrul’s father, who spent a long time in Saudi Arabia – they saw no reason to inform the local chairman, the Member of Parliament, the District Commissioner, the relevant ministry, or the embassy. Why? Because they fear that others might discover the crime or the allegations, which they believe would lead to social disgrace. Furthermore, they lack trust in the embassy and the government. They fear that bringing the matter to light would only invite further social harassment, result in their children being sent back from Saudi Arabia, and potentially lead to imprisonment upon their return home.
Three years is a long time. During this period, the accused and their families could certainly have informed the government and sought assistance. Since they chose to avoid doing so, the government could have done little. While the embassy might have proactively offered counselling, it would have been difficult to secure the cooperation of the Saudi authorities if the accused themselves were unwilling.
The accused and their families may have assumed that the consequences would not be severe; to them, a period of imprisonment might not even be considered a significant punishment. While we cannot provide an authoritative interpretation of Saudi law, it is reasonable to assume that the sanctity of religious sites, and any violation thereof, is treated as a serious offence under Saudi law. The judicial process was extensive: it involved an initial investigation, a trial, an appeals or review phase, and the issuance of a royal decree. The judge would also have considered the accused’s conduct throughout the legal proceedings. A confession of guilt, accompanied by genuine remorse or a plea for forgiveness, could lead to a different outcome than one where the accused repeatedly denies the charges despite the presentation of evidence. Therefore, it does not appear that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence.
The difficulty is that the government or the embassy cannot evade responsibility regarding these death sentences. Regardless of the actions or conduct of the accused, the general public will inevitably hold the government accountable. Migrant workers face harassment at almost every stage of their journey; consequently, their frustrations are directed towards the government, and they often perceive the embassy as hostile. Regardless of where the negligence may lie, the government bears a moral responsibility in this case. To ensure the welfare and safety of migrant workers in the future, the following steps could be taken:
On one hand, the government could compile a database, while ensuring data privacy, of Bangladeshi migrants who are either imprisoned or awaiting trial abroad, based on information obtained from foreign governments. This database should be updated every three, four or six months; and based on these updates, authorities could conduct prison visits, provide legal assistance to the accused, and submit periodic reports to the government in Dhaka. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that embassies are staffed with competent personnel.
On the other hand, the government should engage in immediate discussions with the Saudi authorities to reach a consensus on three key issues. First, to the extent possible, individuals employed in domestic roles, such as household aides, maidservants, attendants, drivers or cooks, should be formally recognised and classified as ‘workers’. Second, a mechanism should be established to allow those convicted of crimes to serve their sentences in Bangladeshi prisons rather than in Saudi Arabia, subject to their consent. This could involve financial allocations to Bangladesh for each such individual, potentially covering costs like the construction of prison facilities. Third, the government of Bangladesh must be notified before any review or appeal process takes place for those facing the death penalty.
Recognising the significance of such issues in the context of bilateral relations is a hallmark of visionary leadership. In this light, what might otherwise be seen as a diplomatic failure could instead catalyse stronger bilateral ties.
___________________________________________
The writer is a former Bangladeshi Ambassador