The Saudi enigma: Many questions, few answers
Last week, disturbing news reached us here. Eight Bangladeshi workers employed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were beheaded for their involvement in an armed robbery and subsequent murder of an Egyptian security guard in 2007. Three other Bangladeshis were sentenced by the kingdom's highest court to imprisonment for different terms and whipping for involvement in the same incident.
The questions that arose in the minds of most Bangladeshis were:
* True, the Bangladeshis beheaded were found guilty of killing an Egyptian security guard. But what were the circumstances that could lead eight men to jointly kill one man? Was this construed as a conspiracy?
* The Saudi justice system is based on the tenets of the Holy Quran and Sunnah and follows the Hanbali system of jurisprudence. It says that clemency can be obtained from the victim's family only if they agree to forgive the assailants and receive "blood money" from them. As the family in this case refused to forgive, all of them had to be beheaded as per ruling of the court. Is this in consonance with the 21st century? Why did the head of the Saudi justice system not listen to the plea for clemency from these poor Muslims? There is precedence when convicted persons have been shown clemency.
· Why were the eight executions carried out in full public view? We are told that this is the practice in Saudi Arabia. The question that begs an answer is why does Bangladesh not have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia? Our citizens should have been brought back and tried according to Bangladeshi law. We must sign such an extradition treaty without any delay. Again, why did our foreign office keep the matter quiet since 2007? Our civil society and our government could have moved various international fora when it was known that clemency was not forthcoming.
· Why were their bodies not returned to their families in Bangladesh? They would at least have the consolation of having their graves here and pray for the salvation of their souls
Neither the Saudi government nor our own government has attempted to answer these questions. The Saudi ambassador in Dhaka explained what had happened on their count. Our ambassador has been asked to reply to our Honourable High Court what steps our embassy in Riyadh took to save the lives of these condemned Bangladeshis. We eagerly await his reply.
We are aware that there are instances in the past when such condemned persons in Saudi Arabia were able to go free after paying blood money or were pardoned.
Let us take the case, in 2009, of an Indonesian maid who was sentenced to death despite her plea that she killed the victim in self defense during attempted rape. The Indonesian government had to pay $535,000 in blood money to secure her pardon.
The other well known case was that of a Canadian citizen, William Sampson, arrested in 2001 and sentenced to death for his alleged role in a bombing plot in Riyadh in 2000.The bombings killed a British national and injured others. He was granted clemency and sent home in 2003.
It is said that such harsh sentencing for murder, armed robbery, rape, drug use and renouncing Islam have brought down crimes in the kingdom. Between 1985 and 2008, Saudi Arabia had executed 1,750 convicts. Thus, there was an annual average of 76 beheadings. But do the latest figures bear this out? In 2009, there were 102 executions.
Let us briefly touch on the Saudi legal system and how it operates.
The primary source of law in Saudi Arabia is the Islamic Sharia derived from the Holy Quran and the Sunnah (traditions of the Holy Prophet). In addition, Ijma or scholarly consensus, and Qiyas, analogical reasoning as applied to the principles of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, are accepted. However, in Saudi Arabia the Sharia remains uncodified as it was in the early days of Islam. In other Muslim countries where the Sharia is used as the source of law, it is mainly codified. They adopt it and enforce it accordingly.
This lack of codification sometimes leads to variation in interpretation and application. As judicial precedents are not accepted, the Saudi courts often look through the six texts of Hanbali school of jurisprudence. They also consult the three other Sunni schools of legal interpretation -- Hanafi, Malaki and Shafi -- before they arrive at a determination. Sometimes they apply independent judgement, which is part of Ijtihad.
Thus, under the Saudi system, much of the substance of the law seems to be in the hands of the judges. The presumption is that Ijtehad determines God's law. In such a situation, a judge's decision cannot be reversed or appealed. There is a move now to try to codify the Sharia in that country.
In Saudi courts, all evidence other than confessions and eye witness accounts is discouraged. The theory is that if it is not so, it would give the judge too much discretion.
The judges and the lawyers in the courts of Saudi Arabia are from the ulema (religious scholars). A single judge usually adjudicates a case. But criminal cases where death, amputation or stoning is sentenced, there is a three-member panel of judges.
In Saudi Arabia, there are three categories of criminal law. First is the Hudud (fixed Quranic punishments for specific crimes), the second category is Qisas (eye for an eye punishment) and Tazir (general category) is the last type. The Bangladeshis were judged on Qisas as these involved murder or crime involving bodily harm.
A major observation of the Saudi legal system is that the judges often have wide discretion in interpreting the Sharia. But besides this, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International always complain that often those arrested in Saudi Arabia are not informed of the crime committed. The accused do not always have access to a lawyer. They are sometimes subjected to abusive treatment. During the trial, there is a presumption of guilt. The accused are often not able to examine available witnesses and the evidences.
The important question before us is whether the accused Bangladeshis had the opportunity to present a legal defense. Did they know the charges? Were they provided with professional translation services from Arabic to Bangla and vice versa? Could lawyers talk to the accused for preparing the defense? How much support did our embassy provide?
It is known that armed robbery by migrant labour often takes place when such people are in great financial difficulties. Many of them on arrival in Saudi Arabia find themselves either in the employment of someone who does not pay as promised, or receive irregular payments. They are also not allowed to change their jobs without special permission (akama). When they face such difficulties they could fall in bad company. Did the Court find out why these Bangladeshis took to crime?
Saudi Arabia and her people are close to us. We respect each other. Answers to some of the questions are important. Will our government help to provide some of these answers?
Comments