Futile tears

THE death of Rizana Nafeek is a tragedy of such deep proportions that it has shocked a catatonic nation and moved a populace inured to violence. Even though it is futile to jump on the ‘blame game’ bandwagon, there are still a few points that need to be put forth in the hope that such a terrible misfortune does not happen again.

Politicians and other officials, true to their nature, have been quick to absolve themselves of all fault, and insist that everything that could have been done was done. But a quick perusal of the events shows that the Government did not act quickly and decisively enough to protect Rizana and give her the legal empowerment that she needed to fight the death penalty. It cannot be denied that bureaucracy hampered – and eventually failed – Rizana in every possible way.  

Human Rights Watch states in its interviews with Sri Lankan Embassy officials and reporting from Arab News that it found serious problems with Nafeek’s access to lawyers and competent interpreters during her interrogation and trial. Nafeek had no access to legal counsel until after a court in Dawadmi sentenced her to death by beheading in 2007. In 2010 Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court upheld Nafeek’s conviction and death sentence, exhausting all judicial remedies unless new evidence emerged.

International law prohibits the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18. A recruitment agency in Sri Lanka altered the birth date on Nafeek’s passport to present her as a 23-year-old so that she could migrate for work, but her birth certificate showed that she was only 17 years old at that time. The High Court in Colombo later sentenced the two recruitment agents to two years in prison for the falsification of Nafeek’s travel documents. Given the eventual fate of Rizana, this sentence now seems laughable.

Rizana was a child herself at the time of the baby’s death, and she had no lawyer to defend her and no competent interpreter to translate her account. Saudi Arabia should have recognised, as the rest of the world long has, that no child offender should ever be put to death.

Yet, it cannot be denied that the Sri Lankan authorities have also failed to uphold their duties to migrant workers. As terrible as Rizana’s death has been, there are scores of other migrant workers who die as a result of working abroad who do not get this same level of publicity. Inadequate efforts by the Sri Lankan Government in negotiating better terms for them, holding employers and recruitment agencies accountable, and swiftly aiding mistreated or abandoned workers in the Middle East has repeatedly been highlighted – but to no avail.

This is a siren call for the Government to get its act together and work to protect migrant workers in the future and provide adequate assistance to their bereaved families. Rizana’s dream was to see her family rise out of poverty, yet, despite many words and minutes of silence held for her, no one has spoken about assisting her family. Even though she spent seven years in prison and her plight was highlighted innumerable times, the family continues to live in a tiny coconut palm hut with nothing but abject poverty for company.

The Government will no doubt point out that its push to promote skilled labour migration would end tragedies such as Rizana’s, but without the right legal and official framework in place, many more Sri Lankans run the risk of danger while trying to give their loved ones a better life.