A growing dispute over the safety of Sri Lankan migrant worker Anojan Sivarasa, who is facing execution in Saudi Arabia, has raised fresh questions about what happened to him inside prison.
Anojan, a Tamil from Natpiddimunai near Kalmunai in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, told his family that he was attacked with a sharp weapon and suffered injuries to six places on his head. But Sri Lanka’s government has presented a markedly different account to Parliament, saying Saudi prison authorities attributed his injuries to scratches caused by another inmate’s fingernails.
The discrepancy has become particularly significant because Sri Lankan diplomats who visited the prison were not allowed to meet Anojan or personally assess his condition.
Family says weapon attack
Rajkumar Rajeevkanth, a civil society activist assisting Anojan’s family, said the prisoner himself contacted his relatives and described the assault.
“Anojan called us himself and said he had injuries in six places on his head,” Rajeevkanth said on Wednesday. He added that Anojan was crying while recounting that he had been attacked with a sharp weapon.
In Parliament, MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam also raised the family’s concerns, saying they had been informed that Anojan was struck on the head with a knife and that his life had been in danger.
According to the family’s account, Anojan had also been transferred from the prison where he was previously held to another facility. The assault reportedly occurred in a section housing prisoners sentenced to death.
The allegations were first made public on Monday, when Rajeevkanth called on both the Sri Lankan government and Saudi authorities to ensure Anojan received medical attention and protection from further harm.
Saudi prison officials give a different account
Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath gave Parliament the government’s version of events while responding to urgent questions from Rasamanickam.
According to Herath, officials from the Sri Lankan Embassy in Saudi Arabia had visited the prison in Dammam twice, most recently on October 6. They met the prison superintendent and doctor but were not permitted to see Anojan.
The information presented to the Sri Lankan government therefore came entirely from Saudi prison authorities.
Herath said the Saudi account was that an argument between Anojan and his cellmate escalated into a physical confrontation. The prison doctor reportedly concluded that the injuries to Anojan’s face and body were caused by the other inmate’s fingernails.
The minister said the Saudi authorities had informed Sri Lankan diplomats that no knife or other weapon had been used, that there was no identified threat to Anojan’s life and that he had subsequently been moved to another cell.
That explanation, however, has not been independently verified.
Neither the prison doctor’s report nor an independent medical assessment of Anojan has been made public. There is also no independent confirmation of whether a weapon was involved or how serious his injuries actually are.
Diplomats could not see the prisoner
The most troubling aspect of the dispute is perhaps not the conflicting descriptions themselves, but the fact that Sri Lankan representatives were unable to examine Anojan directly.
When Rasamanickam specifically asked whether embassy officials had seen Anojan or had simply relied on information provided by prison staff, Herath confirmed that they had not been granted permission to meet him or observe his injuries.
The minister nevertheless urged caution over claims that Anojan had been attacked with a weapon, saying unverified allegations could damage Saudi Arabia’s reputation.
Rasamanickam said his intention was not to criticize Saudi Arabia. Instead, he said he was seeking clarity on behalf of Anojan’s family and the people of his constituency and wanted the information reaching both the government and the family to be properly verified.
Herath said the government was arranging to provide Anojan’s family with information and documents relating to his medical condition.
The death sentence
Anojան’s case has attracted international attention because he is facing execution over a social media comment.
A Saudi criminal court in Al-Ahsa convicted him on July 28 of publishing material through an information network that was deemed harmful to religious values and public morals, as well as insulting the Prophet Muhammad. He was initially sentenced to five years in prison and fined three million Saudi riyals, roughly $800,000.
The family appealed, hoping for a reduction in the punishment.
Instead, the appeals court delivered a far harsher verdict on September 17, sentencing Anojan to death.
Sri Lanka now has until October 17 to challenge the verdict before Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court. Herath told Parliament that Sri Lankan and Saudi lawyers were working together on the appeal and that a Sri Lankan legal team, including two President’s Counsel, had travelled to Saudi Arabia.
The government expects the Supreme Court challenge to be filed before October 14.
Questions over how the appeal was handled
The assault allegations come amid separate questions about Sri Lanka’s handling of Anojan’s legal case.
Rasamanickam asked the government to table the prosecution’s appeal, the original judgment, Anojan’s own appeal, the death sentence judgment and documents relating to any Supreme Court proceedings.
Herath said the government was prepared to table some of the judgments and legal documents in its possession but had not yet received the full prosecution appeal.
Rasamanickam also sought answers on when the government obtained the prosecution’s appeal, whether it was available before Anojan’s own appeal was heard, whether his family had been warned that an appeal could result in a harsher sentence, who authorized the appeal and what legal advice had been obtained.
According to the statement issued by Rasamanickam’s office, the minister’s responses did not address several of these questions.
Documents previously reviewed by Jaffna Monitor reportedly showed that Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry had helped arrange Anojan’s appeal despite a legal opinion obtained by the embassy describing the prospects of securing a reduced sentence as “extremely low”.
The documents reportedly contained no indication that the family had been warned that the appeal could potentially result in a harsher punishment. The ministry sent the family a copy of the appeal memorandum on September 16—more than three weeks after it had been filed and just one day before the appeals court delivered its ruling.
How the case began
Anojან was working in Saudi Arabia when he became involved in an online argument between Hindus and Muslims.
The debate centred on a video showing a young Muslim man kicking a stray dog that had accompanied Hindu pilgrims during the annual Pada Yatra pilgrimage to Kataragama in Sri Lanka.
The dog, popularly known among the pilgrims as Subramani, had itself attracted considerable attention after travelling hundreds of kilometres alongside them.
A comment Anojan posted during the online exchanges subsequently became the basis of the criminal case against him.
His initial five-year sentence and heavy fine were already severe. The appeals court’s decision to replace that punishment with a death sentence dramatically escalated the stakes.
Colombo seeks legal and diplomatic avenues
Herath said the Sri Lankan government would pursue every available legal avenue while respecting Saudi Arabia’s judicial system and Shariah law.
According to the minister, senior Saudi officials had indicated that they did not welcome outside interference while the case remained before the courts.
Sri Lanka could consider additional diplomatic measures depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, including seeking royal clemency.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake met Anojan’s parents last month and reportedly assured them that his government would formally seek clemency from the Saudi king.
Rasamanickam also sought an update on the proposed parliamentary delegation to Saudi Arabia, which was expected to be led by the Deputy Speaker. Herath said the decision would depend on the ongoing court proceedings.
Activist seeks UN intervention
Rajeevkanth has meanwhile taken the matter beyond Sri Lanka’s government.
On Wednesday, he met United Nations Resident Coordinator in Sri Lanka Marc-André Franche in Colombo to seek international attention to Anojan’s safety. He was accompanied by Anojan’s younger brother and Jaffna MP Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam, leader of the Tamil National People’s Front.
Rajeevkanth said he had also conveyed the assault to the United Nations.
He continues to stand by the family’s account but said he did not want to escalate the dispute with Saudi prison authorities because Anojan’s immediate safety was the priority.
“Anojan was attacked with a sharp weapon,” he said. “After that, prison authorities took steps to ensure his safety. We are not going to question further what they have told the government. Our primary objective is to ensure Anojan’s protection.”
Tamil and Muslim political leaders in Sri Lanka have urged Saudi Arabia to spare Anojan’s life.
Rajeevkanth said the campaign for his protection had now spread beyond Sri Lanka, although he expressed disappointment that some members of the Muslim community had criticised the campaign.
“The entire country should speak with one voice on this matter,” he said.
For now, however, the most immediate unanswered question remains what actually happened inside the Saudi prison.
Anojan’s family says he described a sharp-weapon attack. Saudi prison authorities say his injuries were caused by another inmate’s fingernails. Sri Lankan diplomats have not been allowed to examine him themselves, and no independent medical report has been made public.
With Anojan facing a death sentence and the deadline for the Supreme Court challenge rapidly approaching, establishing the facts surrounding his assault, and ensuring his safety while his legal battle continues, has become an urgent concern.
