Friday 16th October, 2026

Glad tidings come occasionally amidst doom and gloom. Sri Lankans are elated that the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia has set aside the death sentence imposed on Anojan Sivarasa. He was initially sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and fined three million Saudi riyals over a Facebook comment deemed insulting to the Prophet Muhammad. The death sentence was subsequently imposed on appeal, forcing Sri Lanka to redouble its efforts to save him. The Opposition lost no time in raking the government over the coals, claiming that it had ruined the chances of saving Anojan.

Anojan has been spared the death penalty, but that does not mean his freedom has been secured. His legal fate remains uncertain. Conflicting interpretations of the Saudi Supreme Court ruling and media reports based on them do not establish whether he will face another sentence at the rehearing or incur other legal consequences for the offence of which he was convicted. A prolonged stay in a Saudi prison could prove a fate worse than death. Anojan has already suffered an assault at the hands of a fellow inmate. His ordeal, therefore, is far from over. It is fervently hoped that he will secure his freedom, return to Sri Lanka and be reunited with his family.

It is both heartening and ironic that a government led by the JVP, an organisation with a history of kangaroo trials and extrajudicial executions, has striven to save a life, and rightly so. One hopes that the government will continue to uphold the same respect for the right to life in its broader sense, a fundamental human rights principle that encompasses not only protection against arbitrary deprivation of life but also the state’s duty to safeguard life. Saving Anojan from the executioner’s blade is therefore a welcome act. But respect for the right to life must extend beyond a single individual facing execution abroad. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, the right to life encompasses protection against unlawful killing, foreseeable threats to life, and conditions that prevent people from living with dignity. These include access to essential healthcare and other basic services, protection against environmental degradation and public hazards, and safeguards against deaths in state custody. The principle applies to everyone, including suspects and convicted criminals, regardless of the gravity of their offences.

It is said that victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan. So, it is only natural that both the government and the Opposition are claiming credit for saving Anojan. If the Saudi Supreme Court had upheld the death sentence, they would have blamed each other.

Sri Lankan taxpayers, who are struggling to keep their heads above water amidst numerous economic hardships and crying out for relief, have a right to know how much the legal and diplomatic efforts to save Anojan from execution have cost the public purse. The government must disclose the expenditure incurred, including legal fees, travel and other related expenses, and explain the principles governing the use of public funds for such interventions.

The government should also make it very clear that all Sri Lankans working or living abroad must understand that they are subject to the laws of their host countries and that insulting religions or committing other offences can have grave consequences. Those who knowingly violate such laws must be prepared to face the legal consequences. At the same time, any policy must allow for exceptional cases in which fundamental rights, access to justice or the risk of disproportionate punishment warrant direct state intervention.

One important lesson that Anojan’s predicament holds for social media users is that freedom of expression is not the freedom of the wild ass. It has limits, and, as the familiar saying goes, one person’s freedom ends where another person’s nose begins.