A 48-year-old mother of three of Indian origin has alleged that her daughter was forcibly sent to Saudi Arabia for domestic employment after a purportedly forged “family report” was prepared by a recruitment agent known as “Jesu” in collaboration with the Foreign Employment Bureau.
The case concerns Nandani, 48, whose 30-year-old daughter Dilhani is a mother of two. According to the complaint, Dilhani was sent to Saudi Arabia for domestic work after her husband, described in the source material as being heavily in debt and addicted to gambling, allegedly used a “family report” that had been fraudulently prepared with the involvement of “Jesu”, a recruitment agent, and the Foreign Employment Bureau.
The allegations have also placed the family under further pressure. Nandani says that her daughter’s 18-month-old child is being kept as a form of leverage, while she has allegedly been threatened that photographs of her daughter in the nude would be displayed unless the complaint concerning the alleged wrongdoing was withdrawn.
Janasansadaya, a human rights organisation in Colombo, documented and published the case first, drawing attention to the allegations and the family’s efforts to obtain official intervention. The organisation’s account says Nandani has continued to seek action from the authorities while her daughter remains in Saudi Arabia.
In connection with the complaint, Nandani says the Foreign Employment Bureau told her that money would be required to bring her daughter back. The allegation adds another dimension to a case in which the family is already seeking an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dilhani’s departure and the alleged use of the disputed family report.
Nandani has submitted a written complaint containing all the relevant information to the chairman of the Foreign Employment Bureau, the Police Children and Women’s Bureau and the relevant probation offices. She has also sought a certified copy of the allegedly fraudulent “family” report submitted to the Foreign Employment Bureau under the Right to Information Act.
The case therefore centres not only on the circumstances in which a mother of two was sent abroad for domestic employment, but also on the alleged preparation and use of official documentation and the response of the institutions to the family’s complaint. The allegations remain claims presented by Nandani and documented by Janasansadaya, and the source material does not indicate that the allegations have been established through a final judicial or administrative determination.
For Nandani, however, the issue remains unresolved. She continues to wait for justice while pursuing complaints before the relevant authorities and seeking access to the documents that she believes will establish how the disputed “family report” was prepared and used.
