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 that was deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad and blasphemous against Islam.
The following day, Saudi authorities executed two Bangladeshis, Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Suety Akhter—identified as Sweety Akhtar by her 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, as the allegations in the two cases were different.
However, the fact that Dhaka claimed it was unaware of the sentences until it was too late to intervene remains a matter of concern.
Saudi authorities described the death sentences of the Bangladeshis as ta’zir, a discretionary punishment, and stated that judicial review and a royal order preceded the execution.
The public statement omitted any explanation of the precise "immoral act," failed to identify the mosque, and did not disclose the dates of the arrests.
What evidence supported the conviction of the two Bangladeshis?
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.
On September 30, Saudi authorities provided a list containing two names, but did not include any details regarding their death sentences.
The Jeddah consulate sent a report to Bangladesh’s Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment on October 18.
According to the Bangladeshi daily The Daily Star, which obtained the report, the two Bangladeshis had been detained since August 2023.
The list recorded cybercrime allegations against Nazrul and adultery allegations against Akhter.
The report also documented 306 Bangladeshi nationals who are currently being held in various prisons located across the western region of Saudi Arabia.
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 the laws of their host countries.
“When a law is violated, there is not much I can do for a Bangladeshi citizen,” she said.
However, Bangladesh could still have sought the assistance of lawyers 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?
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.
A court initially imposed a sentence of five years in prison and a fine of 3 million riyals, which is approximately $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.
Ameer Ajwad visited him in prison on October 8 and provided contact details.
A specialist Sri Lankan legal delegation supported the Supreme Court appeal.
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 remains unclear to what extent the outcome was influenced by the legal appeal or by the diplomatic efforts of Sri Lanka.
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.
Why it matters
The execution of two Bangladeshi nationals in Saudi Arabia highlights critical gaps in consular oversight and the protection of millions of expatriate workers abroad.