I plead for mercy for the wrongs committed by my son. Please forgive him and send him back to us.
Through tears, Anojan Sivarasa’s mother, Rasamanickam Yogalakshmi, urgently appeals for his life. The 24‑year‑old migrant worker, currently in Saudi Arabia, has been condemned to death after an appellate court found him guilty of blasphemy against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad over a brief Facebook comment.
The case has reverberated across Sri Lanka, where political parties and civil‑society groups have organised petitions and diplomatic missions to seek clemency. Government officials have warned the family to stay silent while negotiations continue.
In Saudi courts, execution orders are rarely announced in advance, and families typically learn of the fate only after the sentence is carried out. Anojan’s condition remains unknown; the family has received no updates since 28 September.
The root of the controversy lies in a social‑media dispute stemming from an incident in Sri Lanka. Footage of a Muslim man kicking a dog during a Hindu pilgrimage went viral, provoking heated exchanges. One user retaliated with insults that led Anojan to post an offensive remark about the Prophet Muhammad. Although he later deleted the comment and posted an apology video, screenshots reached his employer, who alerted Saudi authorities; Anojan was arrested the following month.
After an initial five‑year prison sentence and a fine, the Saudi prosecution appealed to apply Sharia‑law principles, resulting in the death penalty. The present case underscores an alarming trend: foreign workers in Saudi Arabia are often subjected to severe sentences for online speech, with limited legal safeguards.
Presidential intervention has been swift. Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake met with Anojan’s family on 21 September, vowing to exhaust all diplomatic avenues for a general pardon. A four‑person legal delegation is traveling to Riyadh to meet local counsel and outline options. Cross‑religious leaders, including senior Buddhist and Hindu figures, have issued memoranda urging state action.
Human‑rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, highlight the disproportionate use of death sentences for online expression and the vulnerabilities of low‑wage migrants who face language barriers and inadequate legal representation in the Saudi justice system.
With more than 10 million foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, the case raises sober questions about the protection of migrant labourers and the application of Sharia‑based justice to modern digital communication.
