By P M Amza –

The case of Sivarasa Anojan, a Sri Lankan migrant worker convicted in Saudi Arabia over an allegedly offensive social media comment concerning Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), has generated considerable discussion in Sri Lanka, particularly on Tamil social media.

The debate has acquired a more serious dimension following reports that a Saudi appellate court has increased his original sentence of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals to the death penalty.

The reported development has understandably caused anxiety among his family and the wider Sri Lankan public. It has also raised important questions concerning Saudi Arabian criminal law, the appeal process and the responsibility of the Sri Lankan Government to protect the life of its citizen.

As a former Sri Lankan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, I believe the immediate priority must be to pursue every available legal remedy while simultaneously seeking mercy through sustained diplomatic engagement.

The two approaches should complement each other. The objective must be to protect the life of a Sri Lankan citizen while respecting the laws, judicial institutions and religious values of the Kingdom.

What does the original judgment reveal?

A letter dated 16 September 2026 from Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, widely available in the media, confirms that Anojan’s lawyer submitted a memorandum of appeal to the Court of Appeal in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region on 24 August 2026.

According to media reports,  the Ministry forwarded the memorandum, together with an unofficial English translation, to Anojan’s family.

As per the memorandum, the trial court found Anojan guilty of verbally insulting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), an act prohibited under Sharia, and of producing and publishing online material contrary to religious values and public morals.

The court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of three million Saudi riyals. It also ordered the confiscation of the digital device used and the closure of the relevant online account.

However, the memorandum reveals another important fact.

The trial court rejected the Public Prosecutor’s remaining requests, including a request for severe discretionary punishment, known as Ta’zir, for the verbal insult against the Prophet.

This distinction is central to understanding the case.

The original proceedings were not confined to a cybercrime allegation. They also involved a finding concerning conduct prohibited under Sharia, for which the prosecution had sought a more severe punishment.

What does Saudi law actually provide?

Article 6 of Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Cybercrime Law prescribes a maximum punishment of five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals, or either punishment, for specified offences involving online material that infringes religious values, public order or public morals.

The provision does not itself prescribe the death penalty.

However, Saudi Arabia’s legal system incorporates both statutory legislation and Islamic criminal law.

Under Islamic criminal jurisprudence, Hudud refers to offences for which particular punishments are prescribed, while Qisas concerns retributive justice, principally in cases involving homicide and bodily injury.

Ta’zir refers to discretionary punishment for offences where the punishment is not fixed in the same manner.

Contrary to some assertions circulating on social media, capital punishment under Saudi law is not confined exclusively to Hudud and Qisas offences. Saudi courts have also imposed death sentences for certain offences classified as Ta’zir. 

This does not establish that capital punishment is legally justified in Anojan’s particular case.

The crucial question is whether the reported appellate decision was based on reconsideration of the prosecution’s original request for severe discretionary punishment or on some other legal ground.

That question can only be answered conclusively by examining the written appellate judgment.

It would therefore be misleading either to assure the public that a death sentence is legally impossible or to assume that the reported sentence is necessarily lawful.

The appeal and the available legal remedies

The memorandum submitted by Anojan’s lawyer primarily challenges the severity of the original punishment.

It argues that the trial court imposed both the maximum imprisonment and maximum financial penalty prescribed under Article 6.

The lawyer requests reconsideration of the sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and Anojan’s personal circumstances.

The memorandum also argues that the incident involved a single comment made during a verbal confrontation rather than a sustained campaign.

An important procedural question remains unanswered: did the Public Prosecutor separately appeal against the original judgment, particularly the rejection of the request for severe discretionary punishment?

The available documents do not establish this. Nor do they establish whether Anojan and his family were advised that the appellate proceedings might result in a more severe sentence.

These matters deserve careful examination without prematurely assigning responsibility to any individual or institution.

Saudi Arabia’s criminal procedure framework provides for Supreme Court review of capital judgments. A reported death sentence at the appellate stage should therefore not automatically be treated as a final, executable judgment.

The immediate priority should be to obtain the authenticated appellate judgment, establish the applicable deadlines and ensure that experienced Saudi criminal counsel pursues every available judicial remedy.

Beyond the legal route: Seeking mercy

While every available legal remedy must be pursued, the diplomatic avenue of seeking mercy deserves equally serious attention.

A legal appeal seeks relief through the judicial system, whereas a diplomatic appeal for mercy seeks compassionate consideration through the appropriate Saudi authorities, within the framework of the Kingdom’s laws and established practices.

The availability of executive clemency depends on the legal classification of the offence and the applicable Saudi provisions. A royal pardon should therefore not be assumed to be automatically available in every capital case.

Nevertheless, every lawful possibility for clemency deserves careful examination and sustained diplomatic pursuit.

Islamic teachings place considerable emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.

The Holy Qur’an describes Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as a mercy to the worlds (21:107). It also states:

“Let them pardon and overlook. Would you not love for Allah to forgive you?” (24:22).

These verses do not override the judicial process, but they provide an ethical foundation for a respectful humanitarian appeal.

Sri Lanka should seek compassionate consideration of Anojan’s personal circumstances, his family and the possibility of rehabilitation, without diminishing the seriousness with which Saudi Arabia regards offences involving religious values.

Such an appeal requires sensitivity, discretion and sustained engagement at the highest appropriate diplomatic level.

Creating the right diplomatic environment for mercy

Seeking mercy in a case of this nature requires more than submitting a formal diplomatic request. It calls for a carefully cultivated atmosphere of goodwill, mutual confidence and understanding between Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia hosts a substantial Sri Lankan expatriate community, commonly estimated at around 300,000 people. Their welfare, employment and contribution to Sri Lanka’s economy give the bilateral relationship an enduring human and economic dimension.

It is therefore essential that Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintain smooth, cordial and constructive relations with the Saudi Government, particularly when seeking humanitarian consideration in sensitive cases.

In diplomacy, the atmosphere in which a request is made can be as important as the request itself.

When a government approaches another country’s leadership seeking an exceptional act of mercy, it should ensure that the broader relationship is not burdened by avoidable irritants that could diminish the goodwill necessary for a sympathetic hearing.

Two issues deserve attention in this context.

The first concerns the Saudi-funded housing project in Norochcholai, Ampara, undertaken for families affected by the devastating tsunami of December 2004.

The prolonged controversy surrounding the distribution of the 500 houses built with Saudi assistance has been an unfortunate feature of the bilateral relationship.

The Government should establish the project’s present status and take appropriate steps to resolve any outstanding legal and administrative obstacles, consistent with the rights of the intended beneficiaries.

The issue is not merely one of development assistance. It also concerns Sri Lanka’s responsibility to honour the humanitarian purpose for which Saudi Arabia extended its assistance.

The second matter concerns Sri Lanka’s diplomatic response to attacks against Saudi Arabia by the Houthi movement.

I have not seen a specific public statement by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning the recent attacks against Saudi Arabia, although this does not necessarily mean that no diplomatic communication has taken place.

Given the substantial Sri Lankan community residing and working in the Kingdom, Saudi Arabia’s security and stability are also matters of direct concern to Sri Lanka.

A consistent expression of concern over attacks against civilian populations and infrastructure, and a reaffirmation of respect for Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, would be in keeping with Sri Lanka’s established foreign-policy principles.

Such a position need not compromise Sri Lanka’s relations with other countries or its commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.

These two matters may appear unrelated to Anojan’s judicial proceedings. However, they illustrate a broader diplomatic consideration: the importance of addressing outstanding bilateral issues and maintaining mutual understanding when approaching the Saudi leadership with a particularly sensitive humanitarian request.

This does not mean that resolving these issues would guarantee a favourable response to an appeal for clemency. Nor should Sri Lanka’s consular responsibilities be made conditional upon concessions in unrelated bilateral matters.

Rather, it is a question of creating an atmosphere in which a sincere appeal for mercy can receive sympathetic consideration without being overshadowed by avoidable diplomatic irritants.

Diplomacy must now deliver

The case of Sivarasa Anojan presents Sri Lanka with a serious consular and diplomatic challenge.

The Government must ensure that every available legal remedy is pursued, that the family receives accurate and timely information and that Anojan has access to experienced Saudi legal counsel.

However, the pursuit of judicial remedies should not delay diplomatic engagement aimed at securing mercy and clemency.

Sri Lanka should mobilise the goodwill accumulated through decades of friendship with Saudi Arabia and seek compassionate consideration through appropriate channels, including high-level communication between the political leaderships of the two countries where warranted.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should simultaneously address avoidable irritants in the bilateral relationship, creating the most favourable diplomatic environment for such a sensitive humanitarian appeal.

Diplomacy cannot guarantee a favourable judicial outcome in another sovereign state. However, it can ensure that every available opportunity to protect a citizen’s life is meaningfully pursued.

For Anojan and his family, the issue is no longer merely a debate about the interpretation of Saudi criminal law.

It is a question of life, mercy and the responsibility of the State towards one of its citizens.

While every available legal remedy must be pursued, Sri Lanka should simultaneously mobilise the goodwill of its longstanding friendship with Saudi Arabia to seek mercy and clemency. This is a moment when diplomacy must combine legal diligence with compassion, discretion and sustained engagement at the highest appropriate levels. ENDS

*The author is a former Sri Lankan Ambassador to the European Union, Belgium, Türkiye, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. He also served as Additional Secretary and Chief of Protocol of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs