Human rights activist Muheed Jeeran questions the Anojan Saudi appeal strategy and argues that diplomatic clemency should have been pursued instead.
The reported death sentence imposed on Sri Lankan migrant worker Sivarasa Anojan following an appeal against his original punishment in Saudi Arabia has raised a difficult question: was challenging the sentence before a higher court the right strategy?
I have previously pointed to similarities between Anojan’s case and that of Saudi blogger Raif Badawi. Having been involved in campaigning on Badawi’s case, I believe his experience provides an important lesson about the risks that must be considered before pursuing an appeal in a sensitive Saudi case involving religion.
Badawi was arrested in 2012 and faced several charges, including apostasy and insulting Islam through electronic channels. The apostasy allegation, which could have carried the death penalty, was ultimately not pursued.
In 2013, he was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes. His case subsequently went before a higher court, and in 2014 he received a substantially harsher punishment: 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes and a fine of one million Saudi riyals.
Only 50 lashes were ultimately administered, in January 2015. Following sustained international campaigning, further flogging sessions did not take place. Badawi completed his 10-year prison term and was released in March 2022.
His experience demonstrates why the possibility of a harsher outcome must form part of the risk assessment before an appeal is pursued.
Questions over the Anojan Saudi appeal strategy
Anojan’s circumstances are not identical to Badawi’s, and the two cases should not be treated as legally interchangeable.
Nevertheless, the history of Badawi’s proceedings should have encouraged extreme caution when deciding how to respond to Anojan’s original sentence.
Anojan was sentenced by the Criminal Court in Al-Ahsa to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of three million Saudi riyals over offences arising from a Facebook post deemed insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
An appeal was subsequently filed seeking a reduction in that punishment.
According to Anojan’s family and his lawyer, however, the appellate proceedings resulted in his punishment being increased to a death sentence.
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry has not yet publicly confirmed the reported death sentence on the basis of a formal written Saudi judgment. The Embassy in Riyadh is awaiting that document, which should establish precisely what the appellate court decided and the legal grounds on which it acted.
That distinction matters.
Until the judgment is obtained and examined by appropriately qualified Saudi counsel, conclusions about exactly why the punishment was reportedly increased must be treated with caution.
Nevertheless, the sequence of events warrants serious scrutiny of the strategy adopted before the appeal was filed.
Did Sri Lanka’s Appeal Strategy Put Anojan at Greater Risk?
Human rights activist Muheed Jeeran questions whether the appeal strategy in Sivarasa Anojan’s Saudi case exposed him to a more severe punishment.
The Morning Telegraph • September 21, 2026Was sufficient attention given to the risks?
My concern is not that Anojan should have been denied every available legal remedy. Nor is it an argument that a person should simply accept a punishment without seeking legal advice.
The question is whether those advising Anojan and his family adequately assessed the potential consequences of taking the original sentence to the appellate court.
Before an appeal carrying such potentially grave consequences was pursued, several questions should have been answered.
Was the family clearly advised that the appellate process could expose Anojan to a more severe punishment?
Did the lawyers advising the family provide a written assessment of the prospects of success and the possible adverse outcomes?
Were alternative diplomatic and clemency mechanisms considered alongside, or instead of, an immediate challenge to the original sentence?
And was the strategy reviewed by lawyers with sufficient expertise in Saudi criminal law and cases involving religious offences?
These are legitimate questions because an appeal should never be assessed solely by asking whether a lower sentence is possible. The potential downside must also be understood.
Diplomacy and clemency should have been central
In my view, the Sri Lankan Government should have placed greater emphasis on diplomatic engagement aimed at mitigating the original punishment, reducing the substantial fine and pursuing clemency, including the possibility of a royal pardon.
Such an approach would not have required Sri Lanka to challenge Saudi sovereignty or disregard the Kingdom’s legal system.
Diplomacy exists precisely because governments sometimes need to advocate for their nationals while respecting the laws and institutions of another state.
The objective should have been straightforward: protect Anojan’s life, seek mercy and explore every realistic avenue capable of eventually bringing him home.
Instead, the appeal has reportedly left him facing a far more serious outcome than the five-year prison term and three-million-riyal fine originally imposed.
That does not, by itself, prove that the appeal caused the reported death sentence or that Sri Lankan officials were legally responsible for the appellate court’s decision. Those conclusions cannot responsibly be reached without the written judgment and a complete account of the legal process.
It does, however, justify asking whether the risks were properly identified before the appeal was pursued.
Lessons from the Raif Badawi campaign
Badawi’s experience also demonstrates the importance of combining legal representation with carefully managed international advocacy.
His wife, Ensaf Haidar, became one of the leading international voices campaigning for him. Governments, international organisations and human rights groups repeatedly raised his case during his imprisonment.
International pressure did not erase his conviction or immediately secure his freedom. He ultimately served his 10-year prison term.
But the campaign kept international attention on his treatment and contributed to sustained calls for Saudi authorities to show restraint, particularly after he received 50 lashes in January 2015.
Anojan now needs an equally disciplined strategy.
Public campaigning, diplomatic intervention and legal action should complement one another rather than operate independently.
Most importantly, every further legal move must be based on specialist Saudi legal advice and a clear assessment of both the potential benefits and risks.
Sri Lanka cannot afford another Rizana Nafeek
For Sri Lankans, the case inevitably brings back memories of Rizana Nafeek, the young Sri Lankan domestic worker who was executed in Saudi Arabia in 2013 despite extensive appeals for clemency.
That history makes the stakes in Anojan’s case painfully clear.
This is no longer the time for competing political narratives or attempts to assign responsibility before all the facts are known. Establishing what happened during the appeal process is important, but saving Anojan’s life must come first.
Sri Lanka should obtain the complete appellate judgment without delay, secure the strongest specialist Saudi legal representation available and simultaneously pursue diplomatic intervention and every viable avenue for clemency.
Only once the immediate danger has been addressed should there be a full examination of how the original appeal was handled, what advice was given to Anojan’s family and whether a different strategy could have reduced the risks he faced.
Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, they must not now be compounded.
Sri Lanka must do everything legitimately within its power to ensure that Anojan does not become another citizen the country was unable to bring home.
Muheed Jeeran
International Human Rights Activist
International Political Lobbyist and Strategist
