The highest judicial body in Saudi Arabia has overturned the death penalty previously handed to Anojan Sivarasa, a 27-year-old Sri Lankan migrant worker who faced capital punishment over a remark made on Facebook. Sivarasa was convicted in September on allegations of blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, an outcome that triggered intense legal and diplomatic interventions from Colombo to prevent his execution.
Foreign Ministry Confirms Relief Following High-Level Talks
Arun Hemachandra, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, formally made the development public through an official announcement. He stated that the Saudi Supreme Court issued its ruling on Tuesday, effectively setting aside the death penalty in what he described as an enormous relief for the young man and his country. Hemachandra emphasized that the favorable judicial turn was made possible strictly by the relentless diplomatic outreach and systematic legal steps pursued by the Sri Lankan government.
The deputy minister conveyed his gratitude to the authorities in Saudi Arabia for their responsiveness throughout the sensitive process. He also extended appreciation to the Sri Lankan ambassador, the secretary and diplomatic staff of the foreign ministry, the leadership and members of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, alongside the dedicated legal teams across both nations who coordinated the defence strategy before the court.
President Highlights Value of Patient Bilateral Engagement
Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake commended the outcome, noting that the decision lifted a heavy burden of uncertainty from Anojan, his immediate family, and citizens across the island who had followed the crisis closely. Expressing his thoughts on X, the President observed that the verdict stands as evidence of what can be accomplished through measured diplomacy, steady adherence to the legal mechanisms of an allied country, and an unwavering commitment to defending citizens living abroad. He thanked the Saudi Arabian administration, envoys, bureaucrats, and court advocates for their focused work.
Welfare Assurances as Remaining Formalities Proceed
President Dissanayake reiterated a broader governance principle, stressing that no Sri Lankan leaving home in pursuit of employment overseas should ever feel abandoned during times of adversity. He pledged that the state would continue extending every requisite piece of assistance to Anojan and his relatives as the remaining legal and administrative stages conclude. While the capital sentence no longer stands, the worker must still navigate the remaining procedural requirements under local jurisdiction.
Origin of the Dispute and Trajectory of the Trial
The ordeal began while Sivarasa was employed as a foreign laborer within the kingdom and entered into an exchange during a Facebook discussion. Text from that interaction was deemed derogatory toward religious figures and classified as blasphemous under domestic statutes. His case was initially tried before the criminal court in Al-Ahsa, which handed down a sentence of 5 years of imprisonment along with a substantial fine of 3 million Saudi riyals.
Although Sivarasa removed the problematic comment shortly after posting it and published an apology video seeking forgiveness, captured digital records had already reached his employer and local enforcement bodies. Saudi law enforcement subsequently took him into custody in July. By September, news emerged that his punishment had been elevated to capital punishment, drawing widespread public scrutiny.
Historical Context and Heightened Concern in Colombo
The imposition of capital punishment had triggered acute alarm across Sri Lanka, largely because of painful historical precedent. Observers inside the country recalled the past ordeal of Rizana Nafeek, another Sri Lankan migrant worker who was executed in Saudi Arabia despite extensive international appeals and governmental entreaties. The shadow of that past tragedy heightened public distress over Sivarasa, prompting the current administration to act swiftly through bilateral channels to ensure an alternative judicial outcome.
