Anoj­an Sivarasa went to Saudi Arabia for work last year.

He was arrested on July 2, 2026, after a social media post that Saudi authorities considered religiously offensive, according to the account given to Parliament by Foreign Affairs Minister Vijitha Herath.

His first court case did not end with a death sentence.

The Saudi criminal court sentenced him to five years in prison, fined him three million Saudi riyals, ordered the confiscation of his electronic device and ordered the closure of the relevant social media account.

Then the case went to appeal.

The appeal produced a much more serious result.

According to Minister Herath’s statement to Parliament, Anojan’s own legal team had appealed against the original punishment. The Saudi prosecution had also appealed, arguing for a harsher punishment.

The appellate court accepted the prosecution’s position and treated the social media post as an offence involving an insult to the Prophet Muhammad.

The written judgment was received by Sri Lankan authorities on September 20 and translated the following day, according to the Government’s account.

That distinction matters because early reports of the case were based partly on information passed to the Sri Lankan Embassy by Anojan’s lawyer. The Foreign Ministry initially said it was awaiting the formal written judgment. It has now told Parliament that the death sentence has been imposed.

Lakbima News had reported the Foreign Ministry’s earlier position in its September 18 report on the case. The situation has since moved on.

Saudi law does not mean the execution happens next

A death sentence from a Saudi appellate court is not, by itself, the final step.

Saudi Arabia’s Law of Criminal Procedure provides that sentences involving death must be reviewed by the Supreme Court. A death sentence issued or upheld by an appellate court is not final until the Supreme Court upholds it.

The law also states that death sentences are carried out only after an order from the King or his authorised delegate.

That leaves legal space as well as diplomatic space.

The Sri Lankan Government says both are being pursued.

Saudi Arabia does use the death penalty against foreigners

Anoj­an’s nationality does not make his case unique in Saudi Arabia.

Foreign nationals have accounted for a substantial share of executions in the Kingdom in recent years, particularly in drug-related cases.

Amnesty International recorded at least 356 executions in Saudi Arabia during 2025. It says that was the highest annual figure it had recorded for the country.

During the first six months of 2026, Amnesty recorded 96 executions. Sixty-one involved drug-related offences, and 39 of those executed for drug offences were foreign nationals.

Amnesty’s longer-term analysis is even more revealing. Between January 2014 and June 2026, it recorded 2,084 executions in Saudi Arabia. Foreign nationals accounted for 75 percent of drug-related executions in 2024 and 78 percent in 2025.

The pattern is not confined to one nationality. Amnesty’s research has documented executions involving nationals of Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia and other countries.

This is why Anojan’s case needs to be looked at separately from the wider debate about Saudi executions. The issue here is not a drug conviction. It is a death sentence arising from a social-media post that the Saudi appellate court treated as an offence under Sharia law.

Amnesty has documented other cases in which foreign visitors or workers faced serious prison sentences over social-media activity in Saudi Arabia. The organisation says foreigners can face additional difficulties obtaining lawyers, understanding Arabic-language proceedings and communicating with families abroad.

Why this matters so much in Sri Lanka

There is a practical reason the case has generated such a strong response in Colombo.

Saudi Arabia is not a distant labour market for Sri Lanka.

According to the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment, 38,133 Sri Lankans left for employment in Saudi Arabia during 2024, making it the country’s largest destination that year.

Foreign employment is also important to Sri Lanka’s finances. The Foreign Ministry reported that migrant workers generated Rs.1.98 trillion in foreign remittances in 2024, equivalent to almost nine percent of GDP.

So when a Sri Lankan worker faces a capital sentence abroad, the Government is dealing with an individual legal case, but also with a much larger migrant-worker relationship.

The Sri Lankan Embassy in Riyadh has an established consular network for workers. In July this year, the Embassy said its “Talk to Your Ambassador” programme had received more than 1,000 queries and complaints from Sri Lankans in Saudi Arabia, with more than 800 resolved or addressed.

A death-penalty case is at the extreme end of that consular responsibility.

Sri Lanka has been here before

The name that still hangs over Sri Lanka’s death-penalty cases in Saudi Arabia is Rizana Nafeek.

Nafeek went to Saudi Arabia in 2005 as a domestic worker. She was convicted over the death of a four-month-old baby in her care.

Nafeek maintained that the baby had choked while being fed. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International later raised concerns about her age, access to legal representation and interpretation during the proceedings. Her birth certificate indicated that she was 17 when the incident occurred, although the passport used to travel to Saudi Arabia gave a different birth year.

Her death sentence was upheld by the Saudi Supreme Court in 2010.

Sri Lankan leaders appealed for clemency. The case remained alive for years.

On January 9, 2013, Nafeek was executed.

There was an earlier episode too.

On February 19, 2007, four Sri Lankan men — Victor Corea, Ranjith de Silva, Sanath Pushpakumara and Sharmila Sangeeth Kumara — were executed in Riyadh after being convicted of armed robbery.

Human Rights Watch said at the time that the men had been held for years without adequate access to lawyers and that the executions took place without prior warning to their families or the Sri Lankan authorities.

Those cases are part of the reason a death sentence involving a Sri Lankan worker in Saudi Arabia immediately becomes a matter for the Foreign Ministry, the Embassy, the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment and, ultimately, the country’s political leadership.

What Sri Lanka can still do

There is no Sri Lankan court that can overturn a Saudi judgment.

The case is governed by Saudi law because the alleged offence took place in Saudi Arabia and the sentence was imposed by a Saudi court.

Sri Lanka can, however, provide legal and consular assistance, seek review through the Saudi judicial process and use diplomatic channels to request clemency or a reduction of the sentence.

That is now what the Government says it is doing.

Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath told Parliament that the Government would cover Anojan’s legal costs in Saudi Arabia and reimburse expenses already incurred by his family.

Two President’s Counsels, Upul Kumarapperuma and Faiszer Musthapha, have also agreed to assist with the legal effort, while the Government is seeking advice from both Sri Lankan and Saudi legal experts.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake is preparing a formal appeal to the Saudi King. A special parliamentary delegation led by the Deputy Speaker is also being considered to deliver the appeal.

The Government has also said that Foreign Minister Herath intends to raise the matter directly with his Saudi counterpart.

These measures do not guarantee a particular outcome. They are the remaining channels available to Sri Lanka while the Saudi legal process continues.

The question that remains

The immediate question is not whether Sri Lanka can order Saudi Arabia to change the sentence. It cannot.

It is whether the Saudi judicial process will ultimately uphold the appellate judgment, and whether the Saudi authorities will respond positively to Sri Lanka’s requests for clemency or another form of relief.

For Anojan’s family, the distinction between those two questions is enormous.

For Sri Lanka, it is also a reminder of the vulnerability that comes with sending hundreds of thousands of people abroad for work each year.

The country has dealt with death-row cases in Saudi Arabia before. In at least two of the most prominent cases, diplomatic appeals continued for years and ultimately failed.

This case has now reached that same difficult territory — but it has not reached the end of the Saudi legal process.