Saudi Arabia Must Hang Its Head in Shame over the Barbaric Execution of Two Bangladeshis

 How can the so-called civilised nations of the world, particularly those that proclaim themselves champions of human rights, remain silent in the face of the reported execution of two Bangladeshis in Mecca? Where are the voices that rise so readily in defence of human dignity, the rule of law and the right to life when confronted with such a disturbing case?

The two Bangladeshis, identified as Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar, were reportedly executed on October 14 over alleged “immoral acts” inside a mosque in Mecca. They were said to have been clicking photographs because it was unthinkable to have indulged in a sexual act in the full glare of thousands of people. Yet Saudi authorities have not publicly disclosed detailed information about the specific acts for which the couple were sentenced to death. When the ultimate punishment is imposed, the public is entitled to ask a fundamental question: what precisely was the offence, what evidence was presented, and by what judicial process was the death sentence justified?

The circumstances surrounding these executions raise grave concerns about transparency, due process and the protection of fundamental human rights. Nazrul’s family has reportedly questioned the fairness of his trial. More disturbingly, the Bangladeshi government has stated that it learnt of the executions through media reports and has sought an explanation from Saudi authorities. If the reported circumstances are accurate, the failure to notify the government of the fate of its citizens represents a deeply troubling lapse in transparency and diplomatic accountability.

The reported use of ta'zir punishment makes the matter particularly deserving of scrutiny. Under the Islamic legal framework, ta'zir generally refers to punishments left to judicial or state discretion for offences not subject to fixed hadd penalties. The existence of judicial discretion, however, cannot by itself answer the essential questions of proportionality, procedural fairness and the protection of human life. Discretion must never become a substitute for accountability.

Equally disturbing is the reported method of execution. Beheading, an exceptionally brutal form of capital punishment, raises profound questions about human dignity and the continued use of the death penalty in the modern world. Whatever offence a person is alleged to have committed, the administration of justice must not become an occasion for the state to demonstrate the power to take life without providing a transparent and credible account of the proceedings.

And what of the right to legal representation? Were the accused afforded effective access to counsel? Were they able to challenge the evidence, appeal their convictions and seek appropriate legal assistance? Were the charges, verdicts and sentences communicated to their families and to the Bangladeshi authorities? These are not peripheral questions. They go to the very heart of justice. The reported failure to inform Bangladesh of the executions makes it all the more urgent that these matters be clarified publicly.

Saudi Arabia cannot expect to command international respect merely by virtue of its wealth, religious significance or geopolitical influence. A state that exercises the power of life and death must be prepared to account for the manner in which that power is exercised. Religious sanctity cannot be invoked to place state action beyond scrutiny, nor can claims of morality excuse the denial of basic procedural safeguards.

The silence of the international community, if it persists in the face of credible concerns, would be equally troubling. Governments, human rights institutions and international organisations should seek a full explanation from Saudi Arabia, establish whether international human rights obligations and applicable legal safeguards were respected, and press for greater transparency in capital cases. Bangladesh, in particular, deserves a clear and comprehensive account of the proceedings involving its citizens.

The issue is larger than the fate of two individuals, tragic though that fate may be. It concerns the kind of justice that modern states must be expected to administer. No legal system should be immune from scrutiny merely because its practices are defended in the name of tradition, religion or sovereignty. Tradition cannot be an excuse for cruelty, and sovereignty cannot be a licence for secrecy.

Saudi Arabia must answer the serious questions raised by these reported executions. The international community must not look away. The right to life, the right to a fair trial and the dignity of every human being demand nothing less.