Saudi King must respond: The truth that Saudi Government Authorities ignored and brutally beheaded the innocent - Bon Voyage our sweet little Rizana
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud must answer to the beheading of the innocent Sri Lankan national Rizana Nafeek in Dawdami town yesterday.
He is the King and the country is ruled by him and he must respond to the wrong beheading of a Sri Lankan national, urges millions Sri Lankans.
Rizana Nafeek the house maid from Sri Lanka was grabbed, manhandled and drag before the Dawdami High Court with the allegation of strangling and murdering of Kayed bin Nayef bin Dzean Otaibi, the 4 month old Saudi boy.
Unfortunately, Mr & Mrs Naif Jiziyan Khalaf Al Otaibi, parents of the Saudi infant boy was very adamant and they refused to consider pardoning the juvenile housemaid who was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged crime.
It was reported that Mr Naif Jiziyan Khalaf Al Otaibi has told to the officers in the Riyadh Governorate when he met the officials for the last time this month that his wife was not prepared to pardon Rizana Nafeek and said she was having nightmares.
Now that their cruel desire has been fulfilled and it is not exaggeration according to millions of Sri Lankan that both Mr & Mrs Naif Jiziyan Khalaf Al Otaibi would be haunted by the brutally beheaded Rizana Nafeek throughout their lifetime and would suffer all along.
Today, the young Rizana Nafeek whom the whole world wanted to be released, is no more with us.
In fact 27 European Union countries enblock appealed to Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud for clemency to Rizana Nafeek. Also Australia, Norway and several NGOs and many human rights defenders appealed to the Saudi King for clemency. But the Saudi King did not relent and it was unfortunate.
Saudi Arabia was one of the three countries; other two are Iran and Syria which brutally behead publicly those found guilty.
It was unfortunate that Sri Lanka allows housemaids and domestic helps to Saudi Arabia and a Sri Lankan national Rizahna has been subjected to ‘legal beheading’ by the Saudi Government authorities.
It is high time President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Sri Lanka Government put a stop to allowing house maids and domestic helpers going to Saudi Arabia for work hereafter.
Though the young Rizana was not an Arabic speaker the Dawdami high court initially conducted the murder case against Rizana Nafeek in Arabic Language based on the statement obtained by the Dawdami police under duress. She has been brutally tortured to obtain confession and subsequently brutally beheaded and saw her no more in this world.
But it is the duty of the Asian Tribune to inform the world the testimony of Rizana Nafeek which has been given to the Dawadami High Court which the Court conveniently rejected her testimony and went ahead with the guilty sentence.
Anyhow Asian Tribune one more time hereby publish the ‘Testimony of Rizana Nafeek ‘ and pray for the departed soul along with millions of Sri Lanka: - Bon Voyage our sweet little Rizana
Given below the English Translation of the Rizana Nafeek statement made on 03 February 2007:
“ Al Dhawadhimi Prisons,
I, Rizana Nafeeq, - who is presently confined in Al Dhawadhimi Prisons on the allegation of homicide - state as follows:
I have already made a first statement to the officials of High Commission of Sri Lanka on the above mentioned allegation.
I am making this statement instead of the statement given to the officials of High Commission of Sri Lanka on this allegation. I am making this statement as I am in good mental condition.
My address in Sri Lanka is – M.S.Nafeeq, Shafi Nagar, Muttur.
My actual age is 19 years old. (on 2007)
My date of birth is 02.02.1988.
The sub agent called Bajurdeen deceitfully changed my date of birth as 02.02.1982 and issued me a passport whereas my actual date of birth is 02.02.1988.
I arrived at Saudi Arabia on 2005.04.01 as my first visit. I was employed at the residence of my Saudi Madam for a period of 1 ½ months. There was no problem to narrate of. I was assigned to do cooking, washing and looking after a four months infant.
As soon as I was brought to this house, I was employed to look after this infant. I had been amenable and maintained good rapport with the house people.
The inadvertent incident, I could not recollect the date of the incident, happened at about 12.30 p.m on one Sunday. The house people whosoever was not at home at that time. In addition to the four months old infant, there were male and female children as well. Usually, I am the one who used to feed milk to that four month-old infant. The day of the incident too, I fed the infant with milk.
When I was feeding the infant, I noticed that the milk was oozing through the mouth and nose of the infant. I stroke the throat of the infant gently. As the infant was seen having its eyelids closed, I thought that it was snoozing.
The madam came home at about 1.30 p.m. and after having seen the infant, she assaulted me with slippers and hands and took the infant away. Blood oozed from my nose. Thereafter police came and took me into their custody. I was assaulted at the police station too. They assaulted me with belt and coerced me for a statement stating that I had strangled the infant. They intimidated me that I would have been killed in the event I was adamant not to give a statement to the effect that I strangled the infant and electrocuted, I would be killed.
In these circumstances, I under duress placed my signature on the written paper they gave to me. They took me to another place and asked a question, As I was virtually in a state with loss of memory and in fear and frightened mood, I had happened to tell them that I strangled the infant. In the name of Allah, I swear and aver that I never strangled the infant.
I hereby place my signature after having read this statement.
- Asian Tribune -