Sri Lankan Tamil Man Faces Death Sentence in Saudi Arabia Over Facebook Comment, Sparking Diplomatic Appeals
A 24-year-old Sri Lankan Tamil migrant worker, Anojan Sivarasa, is facing the death penalty in Saudi Arabia after being convicted over a Facebook comment allegedly deemed insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. The case has prompted diplomatic intervention by Sri Lanka, appeals from religious leaders, and calls for clemency as legal proceedings continue.
How an Online Dispute Led to His Arrest
The controversy reportedly began in Sri Lanka following an incident involving a stray dog that accompanied Hindu pilgrims during the annual Pada Yatra to the Kataragama Murugan Temple. The dog, reportedly named Subramani by devotees, attracted attention on social media after travelling alongside the pilgrims.
In June, a video allegedly showed a Muslim man kicking the dog in Kalmunai, triggering public outrage and heated exchanges online between users from different religious communities. According to media reports citing Sivarasa’s family and people familiar with the case, another social media user subsequently posted a derogatory remark about a Hindu deity. Sivarasa responded in Tamil with a comment allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad.
Sivarasa reportedly deleted the comment and later published a video apologising for his words. However, a screenshot of the original post had already circulated and eventually reached his employer in Saudi Arabia. His employer reportedly alerted the authorities, leading to Sivarasa’s arrest in early July. Authorities also seized his electronic devices, and his social media accounts were subsequently deleted.
From Prison Sentence to Death Penalty
Saudi authorities initially prosecuted Sivarasa under Article 6 of the country’s Anti-Cybercrime Law. On July 27, the Al-Ahsa Criminal Court sentenced him to five years in prison and imposed a fine of three million Saudi riyals, equivalent to approximately $800,000.
The case took a significant turn when prosecutors appealed for the offence to be considered under Sharia law rather than solely under the cybercrime provisions. On September 17, an appellate court reportedly increased the punishment to death, applying what it described as a hadd punishment under its interpretation of Islamic law.
Sivarasa has appealed the death sentence, leaving the case subject to further judicial proceedings. The outcome of that appeal remains crucial to determining his future.
Sri Lanka Steps Up Diplomatic and Legal Efforts
Sri Lanka’s government has been pursuing the case through diplomatic channels. On September 18, the Foreign Ministry said it was closely monitoring the proceedings through the Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh and engaging with Saudi authorities.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake also met Sivarasa’s parents and reportedly pledged to seek clemency from the Saudi leadership. Opposition politicians have urged the president to seek assistance from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pointing to India’s close diplomatic relations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Religious representatives have also appealed for intervention. The Kandyan Hindu Priests’ Association and other Hindu leaders submitted memoranda to the Sri Lankan president seeking government action, while Buddhist leaders separately urged the authorities to pursue efforts to resolve the case.
In October, a four-member Sri Lankan legal delegation travelled to Saudi Arabia to coordinate Sivarasa’s appeal with two Saudi law firms retained by Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry. The delegation planned meetings with the lawyers on October 7 and 8, alongside discussions with Saudi officials, before finalising documents for submission to the Saudi Supreme Court.
Family Raises Concerns About His Welfare
Alongside the legal and diplomatic efforts, Sivarasa’s family has expressed concern about his condition in custody. His relatives have alleged that he was attacked with a sharp weapon while in prison and sustained six injuries to his head. These claims require independent verification.
His brother, Hamsidan, has also spoken about the family’s difficulties in obtaining information about his situation. According to media reports, the family had not heard from Sivarasa since September 28, adding to its anxiety as the appeal process continued.
The family has appealed for mercy, hoping that diplomatic engagement and legal proceedings will prevent the execution of the sentence.
Freedom of Expression and Religious Sensitivities
The case has also revived debate about the boundaries of freedom of expression, religious sensitivities and the consequences of online speech. While countries have different laws governing religious insult and blasphemy, the possibility of a death sentence over a social media comment raises serious questions about proportionality, due process and the treatment of people accused of religious offences.
Comparisons have been drawn with controversies in India involving depictions of Hindu deities by artist M. F. Husain and remarks about Hindu religious figures by comedian Munawar Faruqui. These cases have involved different circumstances, legal provisions and judicial proceedings, but they have featured wider public disagreements about artistic freedom, comedy, religious sentiments and the limits of expression.
The comparison also highlights how laws and public attitudes toward religious offence can differ significantly between countries. In India, freedom of expression is constitutionally protected, although it is subject to specified restrictions. In Saudi Arabia, religious offences may be prosecuted under a different legal framework, with potentially far more severe consequences.
Such differences make it important to examine each case through its specific facts and applicable law while maintaining consistent principles of fairness, proportionality and due process. Protecting religious communities from deliberate provocation and ensuring that punishments are proportionate to the alleged conduct are issues that deserve careful consideration.
Conclusion
The case of Anojan Sivarasa has become a matter of urgent concern for his family and the Sri Lankan government. With a death sentence reportedly imposed over a Facebook comment and an appeal still pending, diplomatic engagement, legal representation and access to information about his welfare remain central to the case.
The proceedings also underscore the importance of consistent principles when addressing religious offence and online expression. Regardless of the religion involved or the country in which an allegation arises, questions of justice, proportionality and due process deserve careful scrutiny. The outcome of Sivarasa’s appeal will determine the next stage of a case that has drawn attention well beyond Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.
Comments