Saudi Court Sentences Foreign Worker to Death Over Facebook Comment

A twenty-four-year-old Sri Lankan man now faces execution in Saudi Arabia following an appeals court decision to impose the death penalty for a Facebook comment deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. The case raises significant questions about religious freedom, international labor protections, and the application of capital punishment in the Islamic kingdom.

Anojan Sivarasa was arrested on July 1 after becoming embroiled in an online religious dispute that originated from a viral video depicting a Hindu pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. According to available information, another user posted derogatory remarks about a Hindu deity, prompting Sivarasa to respond in Tamil with an insult directed at Muhammad. Upon recognizing his error, Sivarasa deleted the comment and posted an apology video. However, a screenshot of his original post had already been circulated.

The path to Sivarasa’s arrest reveals the reach of digital communications across international borders. His brother, Hamsidan Sivarasa, stated that individuals in Sri Lanka contacted his brother’s Saudi employer via email, bringing the Facebook post to the company’s attention. The employer subsequently notified Saudi authorities. “People in Saudi Arabia knew nothing about this matter,” Hamsidan explained. “It was individuals in Sri Lanka who sent emails to the company where my brother worked.”

Following his arrest, Saudi officials confiscated Sivarasa’s electronic devices and deleted his social media accounts. The Criminal Court in Al-Ahsa initially sentenced him to five years in prison and imposed a fine equivalent to eight hundred thousand dollars. The family’s attempt to reduce this sentence through appeal proved unsuccessful, according to Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath.

The case took a more severe turn when Saudi prosecutors requested that Sivarasa be prosecuted under Sharia law rather than the nation’s cybercrime legislation. On September 17, the appeals court granted this request and increased his sentence to death. Sivarasa has filed an appeal of the death sentence.

His mother, Rasamanickam Yogalakshmi, has pleaded for mercy. “I plead for mercy for the wrongs committed by my son,” she said. “Please forgive him and send him back to us.”

The family reported receiving no updates on his condition since September 28. “We informed the embassy and asked officials to look into the matter and update us,” Hamsidan stated. “They said they would check. We are still waiting, as we have not yet received a response.”

Human rights organizations have condemned the sentence. Heba Morayef, Amnesty International’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, stated that no one should face execution for expressing their views, regardless of how insulting or offensive those views might be deemed. She characterized the death sentence as a troubling demonstration of Saudi Arabia’s willingness to impose irreversible punishment for acts that should not be criminalized.

The context of this case cannot be separated from Saudi Arabia’s broader record on capital punishment. The kingdom ranks among the world’s leading executioners, with at least one hundred seventy-five people executed this year through October 5, according to Amnesty International. Saudi Arabia has developed a concerning pattern of carrying out death sentences without advance warning, sometimes notifying families only after the execution has occurred.

This case will test whether international diplomatic pressure and appeals can influence the Saudi judicial system in a matter involving religious blasphemy laws. The outcome will undoubtedly affect how foreign workers perceive the risks of employment in the kingdom.