Saudi Arabia has executed two Bangladeshi nationals convicted of committing an act of indecency inside a mosque in the holy city of Makkah.
According to a report by Khaleej Times, the kingdom’s Ministry of Interior disclosed this in a statement on Wednesday, identifying the executed individuals as Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Siti Akhtar.
The Ministry said that security authorities apprehended them following the incident, after which investigations were conducted and charges were filed before the competent court.
The court subsequently found them guilty and sentenced them to death, citing the seriousness of the offence and the violation of the sanctity of the time and place where it occurred.
The ministry said the death sentences were imposed under ta’zir, a form of discretionary punishment under Islamic law, following the court’s determination that the accused had committed the offence.
It added that the judgment became final after the competent authority upheld it. At the same time, a royal order was subsequently issued for the executions to be carried out in accordance with Sharia.
The executions took place in the Makkah region on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, the statement said.
The ministry reaffirmed the Saudi government’s commitment to maintaining security, upholding justice and enforcing Islamic law against individuals who violate the sanctity of mosques or commit offences against the honour of others.
It further warned that anyone found engaging in such acts would face the punishments prescribed under Sharia.
The execution of two Bangladeshi nationals in Saudi Arabia on 14 October 2026 has raised serious concerns about judicial transparency, consular protection, and compliance with international obligations. According to reports, Saudi authorities sentenced the two lovers to death over alleged misconduct inside a mosque in the Mecca region; however, the precise date of the alleged offence, the full judgment, the availability of legal representation, and whether they were given an opportunity to seek clemency have not been publicly established. Bangladesh’s government reportedly stated that it had not been officially informed before the executions and subsequently sought clarification from Saudi Arabia. This raises questions about compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), particularly Article 36, which provides for consular notification and communication when a foreign national is detained, subject to the conditions specified in the Convention, and Article 37, which addresses notification of a foreign national’s death to the relevant consular post. However, the available information is insufficient to conclude definitively that Saudi Arabia violated these provisions, because the circumstances of detention, any requests for consular notification, and the timing of post-execution notification remain unclear.
A key legal distinction is that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) establishes the general principle that treaties must be performed in good faith (Article 26) and that a state cannot ordinarily invoke its domestic law to justify failure to perform a treaty (Article 27); however, the specific consular-notification obligations arise under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), not the Convention on the Law of Treaties.
In the meantime, different reactions have continued to trail the executions with many people differing on the judgment across the globe.
While some people believe that these kinds of ‘discriminatory laws’ seem to be enforced primarily against migrant workers, while the same standards are not necessarily applied to the citizens of the country itself. They insisted that a migrant worker is a human being with personal freedom and fundamental rights, stressing that if two adults are involved in a consensual relationship, they should have the right to maintain that relationship without facing disproportionate punishment.
“If someone is genuinely sentenced to death over a private relationship, it raises serious questions about justice, human rights, and personal liberty. The law should be equal for everyone—being a migrant worker should never mean having fewer rights. It is unacceptable to benefit from the labor and contributions of migrant workers while disregarding their human dignity and fundamental freedoms.” A social media user post stated.
Another social media user posted: “Before we travel to any country, don’t forget we sign that we accept the rules and regulations of the country. Finish!”
Meanwhile, another post on social media look at it from international laws’ perspectives thus:
“Does Saudi Arabia apply the rules to their citizens?
Reports by Amnesty International (2025–2026) and Human Rights Watch have documented allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and exploitation of female migrant domestic workers by male employers and household members in Saudi Arabia. Interviews with Kenyan and Filipino workers have highlighted vulnerabilities associated with isolation in private homes, employer dependence, fear of retaliation, and barriers to reporting abuse. Although Saudi Arabia enacted the Anti-Harassment Law in 2018 and introduced regulations prohibiting abuse of domestic workers, human rights organizations and UN bodies have raised concerns about gaps in legal protection and enforcement. These findings underscore the need for independent investigations, safe complaint mechanisms, effective legal remedies, and equal protection for migrant workers; however, the documented cases should not be generalized to Saudi nationals as a whole.
References: Amnesty International (2025); Amnesty International (2026); Human Rights Watch; UN CERD observations.”
Many are already calling on international organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and United Nations among others to step into the matter, investigate it and give necessary sanctions and compensation where necessary in order to prevent recurrence.