His mother begs the President to bring him home. His lawyer warns time is running out. This is Anojan Sivarasa’s story
A Sri Lankan migrant worker named Anojan Sivarasa now faces a death sentence in Saudi Arabia after an appeals court reportedly increased his original five-year prison term. The alleged offense: a social media comment that Saudi authorities considered insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Sri Lanka’s government has not confirmed the death sentence officially, but it has confirmed that it is watching the case closely and pursuing every legal and diplomatic option available.
This case matters far beyond one family’s grief. It sits at the intersection of migrant labor rights, free expression online, and the delicate diplomacy that small nations like Sri Lanka must practice when their citizens run into trouble under foreign law. Here is the full story, the background that explains how it escalated, and the questions still hanging over Colombo’s handling of the case.
Background
Anojan Sivarasa traveled to Saudi Arabia to work, joining the roughly one million Sri Lankans who earn a living in the Gulf region. His trouble began with a comment he posted online during a dispute involving religious communities back home in Sri Lanka. According to his family, Saudi authorities viewed the remark as defamatory toward Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
Sivarasa reportedly deleted the comment within minutes and posted a video apology. That gesture did not prevent legal consequences. On July 15, a Saudi court convicted him and handed down a five-year prison sentence along with a fine of three million Saudi riyals — an amount equivalent to roughly 800,000 US dollars.
His legal team, working with support from Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry, filed an appeal seeking a lighter punishment. The appeal memorandum reached the competent appellate court in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region on August 25. Instead of a reduction, the family says they later learned the appellate court had gone the opposite direction entirely: the punishment moved from five years behind bars to death.
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stopped short of confirming that outcome. In a statement issued on September 18, the Ministry said its embassy in Riyadh is still waiting for the formal written judgment from Saudi judicial authorities, which will lay out the official legal basis for any sentence change. Verbally, the embassy learned of the reported death sentence from Sivarasa’s own lawyer, who was present in court.
Context — Why the Case Is Escalating Politically
The uncertainty has not stopped Sri Lankan officials, lawmakers, and civil society figures from speaking out. Former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry issued one of the strongest public appeals so far, urging Saudi authorities to grant Sivarasa clemency. Sabry argued that respecting Saudi Arabia’s legal sovereignty does not mean staying silent about what he called a disproportionate punishment.
He pointed to two mitigating facts: Sivarasa removed the offending comment almost immediately, and he apologized publicly on video. “An offensive remark should not extinguish a person’s opportunity to repent, learn and rebuild his life,” Sabry said. Drawing on his own Islamic faith, he framed mercy as a core value that should guide the response, invoking the idea of divine compassion and arguing that judgment of a person’s sincerity ultimately belongs to a higher authority, not to a courtroom alone.
Cabinet spokesman and Minister Nalinda Jayatissa confirmed at a post-Cabinet briefing that the government is consulting with Sivarasa’s family about the appeal process while exploring diplomatic paths — including the possibility of a royal pardon or a reduced sentence through direct engagement with Saudi authorities.
Meanwhile, Sivarasa’s mother has personally appealed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, asking the government to bring her son home safely.
A Second Front: Questions About How Colombo Handled the Case
Alongside the humanitarian appeals, a political controversy has opened up around the Foreign Ministry’s own conduct. Batticaloa District MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam has raised a series of pointed questions about how the appeal was managed.
According to Rasamanickam, the family moved forward with the appeal on the advice of Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra — even though the Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh had assessed the odds of winning as “extremely low.” The family paid legal fees of Rs. 1,890,766 into an account linked to the Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after being instructed to do so.
Rasamanickam also flagged a troubling timeline gap. Ministry documents show the appeal was filed on August 24. But the Ministry’s letter informing the family and forwarding the appeal to them was dated September 16 — more than three weeks later — despite what he described as repeated requests from the family for earlier access to the paperwork.
There is also a dispute over legal representation. The appeal named an attorney called Adlan Abdullah Al-Subaie as counsel. However, the family says a different lawyer actually appeared in court, and they had no advance knowledge of who this second lawyer was or how to reach him.
Rasamanickam intends to bring these questions to Parliament next week. He wants to know who selected the lawyer who ultimately appeared in court, how the legal fees the family paid were actually used, and why the appeal documents took so long to reach the people whose son’s life depends on them. He is also calling on the government to secure independent, experienced legal counsel for Sivarasa going forward, to exhaust every remaining legal and clemency option, and to raise the case diplomatically at the highest possible level with Saudi Arabia.
What Happens Next
Sivarasa’s lawyer has told the Sri Lankan Embassy that the ruling can still be challenged before the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia, and that the family has roughly one month from the judgment to file that next appeal. The embassy, working under guidance from the Foreign Ministry, says it is preparing to pursue that window in coordination with Sivarasa’s relatives.
Until the formal written judgment arrives, much remains unconfirmed. Sri Lankan officials have been careful, in every public statement, to note that they are still waiting on official paperwork before treating the death sentence as fact. That caution reflects a genuine diplomatic tightrope: Colombo has repeatedly stressed that it respects Saudi Arabia’s judicial sovereignty even as it lobbies quietly, and now publicly, for leniency.
For Sivarasa’s family, the distinction between “reported” and “confirmed” matters little emotionally, even if it matters legally. They are pushing for a Supreme Court appeal, a possible royal pardon, and, above all, answers about how a five-year sentence turned into an execution order — and why they learned about parts of their son’s own legal case weeks after the fact.
Why This Story Resonates Beyond Sri Lanka
Cases like this land hard in Sri Lanka because so many families depend on relatives working abroad, particularly in Gulf countries where legal systems, cultural norms, and free-speech expectations differ sharply from home. A single deleted social media post, an apology issued in good faith, and a punishment that escalated instead of easing all illustrate how vulnerable migrant workers can be when a legal system they don’t fully understand collides with an online misstep.
It is also a story about institutional accountability at home. Regardless of what Saudi courts ultimately decide, the questions Rasamanickam has raised about delayed paperwork, unexplained legal fee transfers, and a lawyer switch without family knowledge deserve real answers — not just for Sivarasa’s family, but for every Sri Lankan migrant worker who might one day need consular help under pressure.
1. Who is Anojan Sivarasa?
Anojan Sivarasa is a Sri Lankan migrant worker employed in Saudi Arabia. He faces a reported death sentence after a Saudi court initially sentenced him to five years in prison over a social media comment.
2. Why was Anojan Sivarasa sentenced in Saudi Arabia?
Saudi authorities convicted him over a social media comment that they considered insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. His family says the comment came from an online dispute involving religious communities in Sri Lanka.
3. What was his original sentence?
On July 15, a Saudi court sentenced Sivarasa to five years in prison and fined him three million Saudi riyals.
4. Has Sri Lanka confirmed the death sentence?
No. Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says it has not received the formal written judgment yet and cannot confirm the reported death sentence. The information came verbally from Sivarasa’s lawyer, who was present in court.
5. Did Sivarasa apologize for the comment?
Yes. According to his family, he deleted the comment within minutes of posting it and later issued a public video apology.
6. Can the sentence still be appealed?
Yes. His lawyer has told the Sri Lankan Embassy that the ruling can be appealed before the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia within one month of the judgment.
7. What is Sri Lanka doing to help him?
The Foreign Ministry says its embassy in Riyadh is coordinating with the Saudi Embassy in Colombo, pursuing diplomatic channels, and preparing to support a Supreme Court appeal alongside Sivarasa’s family.
8. What has former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said about the case?
Sabry has publicly urged Saudi authorities to grant Sivarasa clemency, calling the punishment disproportionate given his quick apology, and appealing to principles of mercy.
9. What concerns has MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam raised?
He has questioned delays in sharing appeal documents with the family, unclear handling of legal fees paid by the family, and confusion over which lawyer actually represented Sivarasa in court. He plans to raise these issues in Parliament.
10. What has Sivarasa’s family asked for?
His mother has appealed directly to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, asking the government to help bring her son home safely.
Sri Lankan National Anojan Sivarasa Sentenced to Death in Saudi Arabia Over Social Media Comment
His mother begs the President to bring him home. His lawyer warns time is running out. This is Anojan Sivarasa’s story
A Sri Lankan migrant worker named Anojan Sivarasa now faces a death sentence in Saudi Arabia after an appeals court reportedly increased his original five-year prison term. The alleged offense: a social media comment that Saudi authorities considered insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Sri Lanka’s government has not confirmed the death sentence officially, but it has confirmed that it is watching the case closely and pursuing every legal and diplomatic option available.
This case matters far beyond one family’s grief. It sits at the intersection of migrant labor rights, free expression online, and the delicate diplomacy that small nations like Sri Lanka must practice when their citizens run into trouble under foreign law. Here is the full story, the background that explains how it escalated, and the questions still hanging over Colombo’s handling of the case.
Background
Anojan Sivarasa traveled to Saudi Arabia to work, joining the roughly one million Sri Lankans who earn a living in the Gulf region. His trouble began with a comment he posted online during a dispute involving religious communities back home in Sri Lanka. According to his family, Saudi authorities viewed the remark as defamatory toward Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
Sivarasa reportedly deleted the comment within minutes and posted a video apology. That gesture did not prevent legal consequences. On July 15, a Saudi court convicted him and handed down a five-year prison sentence along with a fine of three million Saudi riyals — an amount equivalent to roughly 800,000 US dollars.
His legal team, working with support from Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry, filed an appeal seeking a lighter punishment. The appeal memorandum reached the competent appellate court in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region on August 25. Instead of a reduction, the family says they later learned the appellate court had gone the opposite direction entirely: the punishment moved from five years behind bars to death.
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stopped short of confirming that outcome. In a statement issued on September 18, the Ministry said its embassy in Riyadh is still waiting for the formal written judgment from Saudi judicial authorities, which will lay out the official legal basis for any sentence change. Verbally, the embassy learned of the reported death sentence from Sivarasa’s own lawyer, who was present in court.
Context — Why the Case Is Escalating Politically
The uncertainty has not stopped Sri Lankan officials, lawmakers, and civil society figures from speaking out. Former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry issued one of the strongest public appeals so far, urging Saudi authorities to grant Sivarasa clemency. Sabry argued that respecting Saudi Arabia’s legal sovereignty does not mean staying silent about what he called a disproportionate punishment.
He pointed to two mitigating facts: Sivarasa removed the offending comment almost immediately, and he apologized publicly on video. “An offensive remark should not extinguish a person’s opportunity to repent, learn and rebuild his life,” Sabry said. Drawing on his own Islamic faith, he framed mercy as a core value that should guide the response, invoking the idea of divine compassion and arguing that judgment of a person’s sincerity ultimately belongs to a higher authority, not to a courtroom alone.
Cabinet spokesman and Minister Nalinda Jayatissa confirmed at a post-Cabinet briefing that the government is consulting with Sivarasa’s family about the appeal process while exploring diplomatic paths — including the possibility of a royal pardon or a reduced sentence through direct engagement with Saudi authorities.
Meanwhile, Sivarasa’s mother has personally appealed to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, asking the government to bring her son home safely.
A Second Front: Questions About How Colombo Handled the Case
Alongside the humanitarian appeals, a political controversy has opened up around the Foreign Ministry’s own conduct. Batticaloa District MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam has raised a series of pointed questions about how the appeal was managed.
According to Rasamanickam, the family moved forward with the appeal on the advice of Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra — even though the Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh had assessed the odds of winning as “extremely low.” The family paid legal fees of Rs. 1,890,766 into an account linked to the Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, after being instructed to do so.
Rasamanickam also flagged a troubling timeline gap. Ministry documents show the appeal was filed on August 24. But the Ministry’s letter informing the family and forwarding the appeal to them was dated September 16 — more than three weeks later — despite what he described as repeated requests from the family for earlier access to the paperwork.
There is also a dispute over legal representation. The appeal named an attorney called Adlan Abdullah Al-Subaie as counsel. However, the family says a different lawyer actually appeared in court, and they had no advance knowledge of who this second lawyer was or how to reach him.
Rasamanickam intends to bring these questions to Parliament next week. He wants to know who selected the lawyer who ultimately appeared in court, how the legal fees the family paid were actually used, and why the appeal documents took so long to reach the people whose son’s life depends on them. He is also calling on the government to secure independent, experienced legal counsel for Sivarasa going forward, to exhaust every remaining legal and clemency option, and to raise the case diplomatically at the highest possible level with Saudi Arabia.
What Happens Next
Sivarasa’s lawyer has told the Sri Lankan Embassy that the ruling can still be challenged before the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia, and that the family has roughly one month from the judgment to file that next appeal. The embassy, working under guidance from the Foreign Ministry, says it is preparing to pursue that window in coordination with Sivarasa’s relatives.
Until the formal written judgment arrives, much remains unconfirmed. Sri Lankan officials have been careful, in every public statement, to note that they are still waiting on official paperwork before treating the death sentence as fact. That caution reflects a genuine diplomatic tightrope: Colombo has repeatedly stressed that it respects Saudi Arabia’s judicial sovereignty even as it lobbies quietly, and now publicly, for leniency.
For Sivarasa’s family, the distinction between “reported” and “confirmed” matters little emotionally, even if it matters legally. They are pushing for a Supreme Court appeal, a possible royal pardon, and, above all, answers about how a five-year sentence turned into an execution order — and why they learned about parts of their son’s own legal case weeks after the fact.
Why This Story Resonates Beyond Sri Lanka
Cases like this land hard in Sri Lanka because so many families depend on relatives working abroad, particularly in Gulf countries where legal systems, cultural norms, and free-speech expectations differ sharply from home. A single deleted social media post, an apology issued in good faith, and a punishment that escalated instead of easing all illustrate how vulnerable migrant workers can be when a legal system they don’t fully understand collides with an online misstep.
It is also a story about institutional accountability at home. Regardless of what Saudi courts ultimately decide, the questions Rasamanickam has raised about delayed paperwork, unexplained legal fee transfers, and a lawyer switch without family knowledge deserve real answers — not just for Sivarasa’s family, but for every Sri Lankan migrant worker who might one day need consular help under pressure.
1. Who is Anojan Sivarasa?
Anojan Sivarasa is a Sri Lankan migrant worker employed in Saudi Arabia. He faces a reported death sentence after a Saudi court initially sentenced him to five years in prison over a social media comment.
2. Why was Anojan Sivarasa sentenced in Saudi Arabia?
Saudi authorities convicted him over a social media comment that they considered insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. His family says the comment came from an online dispute involving religious communities in Sri Lanka.
3. What was his original sentence?
On July 15, a Saudi court sentenced Sivarasa to five years in prison and fined him three million Saudi riyals.
4. Has Sri Lanka confirmed the death sentence?
No. Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says it has not received the formal written judgment yet and cannot confirm the reported death sentence. The information came verbally from Sivarasa’s lawyer, who was present in court.
5. Did Sivarasa apologize for the comment?
Yes. According to his family, he deleted the comment within minutes of posting it and later issued a public video apology.
6. Can the sentence still be appealed?
Yes. His lawyer has told the Sri Lankan Embassy that the ruling can be appealed before the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia within one month of the judgment.
7. What is Sri Lanka doing to help him?
The Foreign Ministry says its embassy in Riyadh is coordinating with the Saudi Embassy in Colombo, pursuing diplomatic channels, and preparing to support a Supreme Court appeal alongside Sivarasa’s family.
8. What has former Foreign Minister Ali Sabry said about the case?
Sabry has publicly urged Saudi authorities to grant Sivarasa clemency, calling the punishment disproportionate given his quick apology, and appealing to principles of mercy.
9. What concerns has MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam raised?
He has questioned delays in sharing appeal documents with the family, unclear handling of legal fees paid by the family, and confusion over which lawyer actually represented Sivarasa in court. He plans to raise these issues in Parliament.
10. What has Sivarasa’s family asked for?
His mother has appealed directly to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, asking the government to help bring her son home safely.