How many migrant workers must die before Dhaka speaks up?

A failure of protection for Bangladeshis imprisoned abroad

Bdbusinessdaily.com – The executions of Sweety Akhtar and Nazrul Islam in Saudi Arabia have exposed alarming gaps in the protection available to Bangladeshi migrant workers facing serious criminal charges overseas. Their families knew they were in prison, yet neither appears to have been told that a death sentence was imminent.

Sweety last spoke with her father on 13 October from a Saudi prison. She did not mention any death sentence and had previously given her family reason to hope that she could leave custody within two months. She was executed the following day.

Nazrul, a 22-year-old cleaner, had maintained regular contact with his family from prison, speaking with them each Sunday. His father had taken a Tk7 lakh loan to send him to Saudi Arabia in 2022. More than three years after Nazrul’s arrest, his relatives learned through media coverage that he, too, had been executed on 14 October.

Questions over notice and oversight

Saudi authorities did not appear to notify the Bangladesh Embassy in Riyadh or the Consulate General in Jeddah before the sentences were carried out. A prisoner list received by the consulate on 30 September, just two weeks before the executions, included both names but did not identify either person as being on death row.

That raises two deeply troubling issues. Why were Bangladeshi diplomatic offices not informed before two citizens were executed? And why was there no independent mechanism capable of identifying the danger faced by people who had been detained for years?

For a family in rural Bangladesh, the difference between knowing that a relative is jailed and knowing that they may be executed is immense. Without clear information, relatives cannot seek legal advice, approach officials, gather documents, or pursue humanitarian appeals. Once an execution has happened, any opportunity to examine the case or request clemency has vanished.

Unanswered questions about the cases

A memo sent by the Bangladesh Consulate General in Jeddah to the Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment on 18 October described differing accounts of the allegations. It stated that Nazrul was detained on 1 August 2023 under Saudi Arabia’s cybercrime law. Sweety was detained the next day in connection with an adultery allegation.

Later, the Saudi Interior Ministry stated that both had been convicted for an “immoral act” inside a mosque in Mecca. The available account does not explain how those descriptions relate to each other, or whether the original accusations changed during the legal process.

It also remains unclear whether Nazrul and Sweety had lawyers and interpreters throughout their trials. Saudi courts can provide interpretation, but the arrangement described by the consulate does not allow defendants to choose the interpreter. For people who may not understand Arabic or the legal process, this limitation can be consequential.

Their relatives have rejected or expressed doubt about the allegations. Such claims alone cannot settle what occurred. But that uncertainty makes access to court judgments, evidence and trial records all the more important. A criminal process cannot be properly assessed when the accused, their families, their home country and the public have little information until after the punishment is irreversible.

Consular duty cannot begin with a petition

The Bangladesh consulate has said that neither family contacted it or sought legal assistance. That may explain why officials did not open a case file after a family request. It does not, however, answer the larger institutional question.

Expecting poor families to understand foreign criminal procedure, identify the right diplomatic office and submit the correct application places the burden on those least equipped to carry it. Migrant workers and their relatives may have limited resources, limited information and little ability to navigate a legal system thousands of kilometres away.

Barrister Sara Hossain, honorary executive director of the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust, has argued that diplomatic protection should not depend on a family initiating the process.

The consular defence that the embassy can act only if a migrant’s family files a petition is legally untenable.

Her position is that once a Bangladeshi citizen is detained abroad, the state should make contact, determine the charges and legal status, help facilitate legal representation, and ensure the detainee can remain in touch with family members.

A state’s duty of protection travels with its people.

Migrant workers are not commodities being exported. They are citizens with fundamental rights.

This principle matters especially for migrant workers. Many leave Bangladesh seeking an income for their families, often through loans that can weigh heavily on households for years. They may not know the criminal laws of the destination country, the consequences of an accusation, or the steps required to seek help after an arrest.

Diplomacy and humanitarian responsibility

Human-rights activist Nur Khan Liton has recognised that foreign citizens must comply with the laws of the countries where they live. Yet legal jurisdiction does not prevent Bangladesh from seeking information, pursuing humanitarian engagement or requesting mercy through diplomatic channels.

A state can always intervene on humanitarian grounds, pursue high-level bilateral dialogue, and seek clemency.

How could we not even be informed?

No government can guarantee a particular outcome in another country’s court system. But it can establish a process that detects high-risk cases early, records the legal status of detained citizens, maintains contact with families and ensures that requests for counsel, interpretation or clemency are not missed simply because relatives did not know where to turn.

The deaths of Sweety Akhtar and Nazrul Islam demand more than an explanation of whether a formal request reached a consulate. They require a serious review of how Bangladesh monitors its citizens in foreign prisons, particularly those facing severe punishment. A system that learns of an execution only after it occurs has failed at the point when protection was needed most.