A 24-year-old Sri Lankan migrant worker in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to death over a Facebook comment he wrote, removed within hours, and publicly apologized for. Anojan Sivarasa was arrested on July 1 after the post, which was deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, surfaced during an online dispute that began in Sri Lanka. The case has drawn condemnation from Amnesty International and intervention from Sri Lanka's president, underscoring how a brief exchange on social media can escalate into a matter of life and death under Saudi law.
How a deleted post became a capital case
The dispute originated far from Saudi Arabia. In late June, a video showing a young Muslim man kicking a dog that had been following Hindu pilgrims in Sri Lanka spread online, triggering a heated exchange. Someone posted derogatory remarks about a Hindu deity, and Anojan replied with a comment insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. He deleted it almost immediately and posted a video apology. That was not enough. Someone took a screenshot and forwarded it to his employer and to Saudi authorities, turning private citizens in Sri Lanka into informants for a foreign legal system.
Anojan was initially sentenced to five years in prison and a fine, the maximum penalty under Saudi Arabia's anti-cybercrime law. Prosecutors were not satisfied and appealed, asking that he be tried instead under Sharia law. On September 17, an appeals court found him guilty of insulting the Prophet and imposed the death penalty as a hadd punishment - a fixed, mandatory sentence under Islamic jurisprudence that leaves judges little discretion once a conviction is reached. Anojan has appealed.
A legal system without a written penal code
Saudi Arabia has no codified penal code for many offenses, which means judges interpret and apply Islamic law largely according to their own understanding. Amnesty International has pointed to this as a structural problem, allowing vastly different outcomes for similar conduct depending on the court and the charge. Anojan was reportedly denied access to a lawyer from the time of his arrest until his first sentencing, and his family says they have had no contact with him since September 28.
This is not an isolated case. A British citizen, Ahmed al-Doush, was sentenced to ten years in prison over a deleted tweet sent from an account with just 37 followers. Salma al-Shehab, a Saudi national, saw a three-year sentence for retweeting dissident posts increased to 34 years on appeal. A retired teacher, Mohammed al-Ghamdi, was sentenced to death over social media activity before his punishment was reduced to 30 years. Amnesty International recorded at least 175 executions in Saudi Arabia this year as of October 5, including at least 94 foreign nationals.
Diplomatic pressure and a family's plea
Sri Lanka's President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has met with Anojan's family and pledged to intervene, and a four-member legal team has traveled to Saudi Arabia to assist his defense. Buddhist and Hindu religious leaders in Sri Lanka have joined calls for clemency. Anojan's mother, Rasamanickam Yogalakshmi, has pleaded publicly for forgiveness, asking authorities to "send him back to us." No execution date has been set.
Amnesty International's Heba Morayef described the case as a stark illustration of the Saudi state's willingness to impose irreversible punishment for speech, saying no one should face execution "simply for expressing their views, even if these are deemed insulting or offensive." The case highlights a broader pattern: Saudi authorities have pursued speech-related prosecutions against foreign nationals even after retraction and apology, and have relied on tips from abroad, including from private citizens of the accused's home country, to build their cases.
