Saudi court sets aside worker’s death sentence over Facebook comment—but freedom is unconfirmed

One Facebook comment took Anojan Sivarasa from a five-year prison sentence to a death sentence in Saudi Arabia. Now the death-penalty judgment has been set aside—but the Sri Lankan migrant worker’s freedom is still unconfirmed. The reversal removes the reported capital punishment; it does not establish that he has been acquitted, released or allowed to return home. ¹

Sri Lanka’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arun Hemachandra announced the Supreme Court decision on October 14, 2026. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism confirmed the development that day, describing it as a “significant breakthrough.” For Sivarasa, it is an enormously consequential change. It is not yet a final answer about his punishment or where he will spend the coming days. ^{4 29}

The public account rests on Sri Lankan official announcements and corroborating reporting. The Saudi Supreme Court’s actual order, case number, reasoning and instructions on custody or further proceedings have not been recovered. That missing document matters: setting aside a judgment imposing death is not necessarily the same legal act as overturning the underlying conviction.

There is also a one-day discrepancy over when the court acted. Newswire and TimesOnline’s October 14 accounts report Hemachandra dating the decision to October 13. The BBC and The Hindu describe a Wednesday, October 14 ruling. The reported official statement supports October 13 as the decision date and October 14 as the announcement date, but without the order the difference in the published accounts cannot be conclusively settled. ^{4 6 1 2}

Sivarasa is a Tamil Hindu from Narpittimunai, near Kalmunai in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province. He travelled to Saudi Arabia for work. Reports variously describe technical, engineering and construction-related employment, without establishing a single verified occupation or employer. His age is inconsistently reported too: the BBC identifies him as 27, while The Independent and several other accounts give 24. Neither age is settled. ^{11 1 5}

The argument behind the prosecution developed in late June around a circulating video of a man kicking a dog that had been following Hindu pilgrims. After another participant made a derogatory comment about a Hindu deity, Sivarasa replied in Tamil with remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. Saudi courts treated those remarks as insulting and blasphemous. The case concerned religious expression, not an allegation that Sivarasa had committed physical violence. ^{11 23}

Sivarasa said he deleted the comment within about ten minutes. He also posted an apology video. But deletion did not stop screenshots from reaching his employer and Saudi authorities. The exact wording of the comment and the complete apology have not been recovered; descriptions of them should not be mistaken for a verbatim record. ^{11 23}

He was arrested in the Dammam area in early July. Amnesty International UK’s October 7 case statement gives July 1; other accounts use July 2. The Al-Ahsa Criminal Court subsequently imposed five years in prison and a fine of three million Saudi riyals. Reports also differ over the precise July sentencing date, and the original judgment is unavailable to resolve them. ^{74 11 1}

The initial prosecution involved Article 6 of Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Cyber Crime Law and material treated as undermining religious values or public morals. Sivarasa’s defence challenged the five-year sentence, unsuccessfully. Prosecutors separately sought to have the conduct treated under Sharia, Islamic law, as blasphemy. The Eastern Region Court of Appeal then imposed death. ^{20 23}

That distinction is important. This was not simply a case in which asking for an appeal automatically produced a death sentence. The prosecution’s separate demand for harsher legal treatment was part of the escalation. Detailed case reporting dates the death sentence to September 17, 2026; the BBC’s account identifies September without specifying the day. ^{11 20 1}

Sri Lanka sent a legal team to Riyadh in early October. It included lawmaker and President’s Counsel Faiszer Musthapha, President’s Counsel Upul Kumarapperuma, Hafeel Farisz and an additional solicitor general. Ambassador Ameer Ajward coordinated the appeal through the embassy in Riyadh. The Supreme Court appeal was filed on October 11, according to the Daily Mirror and a separate LankaLeader account published the following day. ^{13 65 3 81}

Hemachandra credited sustained diplomatic and legal efforts, thanking the Saudi government, Sri Lankan officials, the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment and legal teams from both countries. That establishes the official account of the work surrounding the appeal. It does not establish the Supreme Court’s legal reason for reversing the judgment—whether it rejected the basis for death, found a procedural defect or required reconsideration. ^{4 29}

Before the reversal, Sivarasa was reported held at Dammam Central Prison. An ambassadorial visit was reported in early October, around October 8, and a subsequent official account described him as in good health. Those reports predate the Supreme Court decision; they cannot establish his custody status afterward. ^{56 32}

Earlier family accounts alleged that he had been attacked or injured in prison and described limited contact after approximately September 28. Saudi authorities reportedly characterised the injuries as minor scratches from a fight. The circumstances and competing descriptions have not been independently established. A later account of good health does not by itself resolve what happened earlier. ^{11 77 32}

Musthapha told BBC Sinhala that officials were reviewing the ruling. Kumarapperuma told The Hindu that a fresh sentence was expected. That is a participating lawyer’s expectation—not evidence that a replacement sentence has been imposed, a hearing scheduled or the case formally referred to a lower court. ^{1 2}

Nothing in the available wording confirms that the original prison term and fine have automatically been restored—or cancelled. The responsible conclusion is narrower than a declaration that the case is over: the death-penalty judgment has been set aside, while Sivarasa’s freedom and final punishment remain unresolved. ^{1 2 14}