A Christian Pakistani Asylum Seeker’s Desperate Cry for Help
Photo courtesy of Rappler
Refugees being compelled to live in airports for prolonged periods is something I have heard, read and watched movies about. There is now a similar story unfolding at the Bandaranaike International Airport.
Salamat Mansha is a Pakistani Christian who got bail after being jailed for blasphemy, an offence that carries death sentence and may lead to severe violence including death at hands of mobs.
A complaint against Mansha and another person was made by a college student who had stated that Mansha was preaching and making blasphemous remarks at Model Town Park in Lahore on February 13, 2021. The First Information Report was registered under sections 295-A, 295-B and 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code at Model Town police station. Section 295-A sets out the offence of “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class”. Section 295-B makes it an offence to willfully defile, damage or desecrate a copy of the Holy Qur’an. A section 295-C offence is committed by one who “defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad”. Section 295-A offence prescribes a maximum imprisonment of ten years, section 295-B an imprisonment for life and section 295-C the punishment of death.
Mansha was arrested on April 1, 2021 and detained for nearly 17 months. Bail was denied by a Sessions Judge and Judge of the High Court, who had placed complete reliance on contents of the complaint and statements of three friends of the complainant.
At a bail hearing at the Supreme Court[i], Mansha’s counsel submitted that the publication referred to in the complaint had no blasphemous content; that the complaint was registered after an inordinate delay of about eight hours even though the Model Town police station was in the vicinity of the park; that the four friends, all of whom had mobile phones with them, did not record the incident on their mobile phones despite it lasting for about 30 minutes; that the four friends did not disclose what they had said during the 30 minutes and it was unlikely that they would stand by and listen to someone blaspheming for half an hour; that the Model Town Society deployed round the clock security guards at the park but no guard or visitor in the park complained or recorded their statements; and that two Christians would be foolhardy to say what was alleged before four Muslim men and in a public park in which the majority of people were Muslims.
The Supreme Court noted this and stated that although complainants alleged that Mansha and the other accused started preaching Christianity, preaching Christianity was not a crime due to the constitutional right to practice and propagate one’s religion. The court noted that the book mentioned by complainants did not contain any blasphemous content and there was no evidence to support the preaching allegation, which was weakened by the fact that the accused was not a preacher but a sweeper and less educated than the complainant and his friends. The court noted that although Mansha and the other accused were detained for nearly 18 months, no incriminating evidence or unlawful content in their mobile phones were discovered. The allegation of defiling the Holy Quran had not been mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the statements of the complainant.
The court also noted that it was prohibited for an investigating officer to discriminate or give preference on religious grounds and that the defense version should also not be ignored but that in this case the investigating Superintendent of Police had accepted the word of the complainants against that of the two accused and no reason was given for the preference.
The Supreme Court granted bail to Mansha on August 23, 2022.
Fleeing Pakistan seeking safety
Soon afterwards Mansha and his wife had left Pakistan, seeking safety. They went to Syria, Jordan, Nepal and came to Sri Lanka around on March 29, 2026. Both obtained Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) valid for 30 days with double entries and a return ticket from Sri Lanka to Nepal. They were intending to seek asylum through United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Sri Lanka.
On arrival at the airport, the authorities had refused to allow entry to Mansha and his wife. Liyanage Thisara, an officer of the Department of Immigration and Emigration, informed Sri Lankan Airlines that Mansha and his wife Asma have been refused endorsements on their travel documents to enter Sri Lanka and that they should be detained aboard the aircraft until it leaves Sri Lanka. Three days and four nights later, they are still in the transit area of the airport.
With help of an interpreter, Mansha told me he was told by officials that he and his wife would be deported to Pakistan. The authorities had pressured him to purchase a ticket to go to Pakistan or somewhere else but he had refused. The authorities threatened to deport him by changing the destination of his return ticket from Nepal to Pakistan. He pleaded not to be deported, explaining that he maybe killed and face persecution and that he wishes to apply for asylum through UNHCR Sri Lanka.
Seeking asylum through UNHCR Sri Lanka
Late night on March 30 while being stuck at the airport, Salamat emailed UNHCR Sri Lanka and requested help to apply asylum and not be deported. Below are excerpts form his email.
“In my desperate search for asylum, I traveled to Syria, Jordan, and Nepal, but unfortunately, I was unable to receive protection in any of these countries. With hope in my heart, I came to Sri Lanka so that I could apply for asylum and finally find safety. However, upon arrival at Colombo Airport on 29 March 2026, I was not allowed to enter the country. It has now been more than 24 hours, and I am still inside the airport with my wife, in a state of fear and uncertainty. The airline authorities are pressuring us to return to Pakistan, but going back is not an option for us – it is a matter of life and death. We are not criminals. We are simply human beings seeking protection, safety, and the right to live without fear. I respectfully and urgently request the UNHCR Sri Lanka office to intervene immediately and stop our deportation. Please grant us the opportunity to apply for asylum and provide us with protection. We are standing at the airport with fear in our hearts, not knowing what will happen next. Returning to Pakistan would expose us to severe persecution, violence, and possibly death. Please, we beg you – do not send us back into danger. Your urgent intervention can save our lives.”
Consequences of deportation
Mansha’s fears are validated by observations of the Pakistani Supreme Court and others.
In the bail judgement for Mansha, the Supreme Court of Pakistan stated that offences relating to religion are very serious offences and that section 295-C offence prescribes only the punishment of death and therefore, utmost care must be exercised by all concerned that no injustice in the administration of justice takes place. The Supreme Court had taken notice of the fact that many a time false allegations were levelled to settle personal scores and cases are also registered for mischievous purposes or on account of ulterior motives. The Supreme Court also noted that undue enthusiasm from private complainants may undermine credibility and that sometimes complainants and others pressure the prosecution and courts.
Chillingly, the Supreme Court remarked that there have been instances when tempers were provoked and enflamed by provocateurs and a mob was collected and enraged to take the law into its own hands to hurt and even kill the accused before he was adjudged guilty.
According to South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR)[ii], blasphemy accused persons may be subjected to custodial torture and enforced disappearances. In one instance a 24 year-old blasphemy suspect leapt from the fourth floor of the Federal Investigations Agency (FIA) Punjab headquarters in Lahore and injured himself because the FIA officials tortured him and ordered him to sexually abuse the other blasphemy suspect who was his own cousin. In another instance, Dr. Shahnawaz Kabhar of Sindh province was accused of blasphemy and went in to hiding. His family and local reports stated that he was he was allegedly killed by the police. Blasphemy accusations have been misused for personal vendettas and seizure of property. In 2021, a Sri Lankan factory manager Don Nandasiri Priyantha Kumara working in Pakistan was ruthlessly lynched to death after he was falsely accused of blasphemy.
Obligations of the government
Although I and others contacted several ministers, deputy ministers and government officials and brought this to their attention in writing on March 31, there’s been no resolution and Mansha and his wife remain at the airport unable to sleep, with no food orclothes.
The discretion the Department of Immigration and Emigration has in allowing whom to enter Sri Lanka is not extended to deporting asylum seekers as the government is bound to respect the customary international law principle of non-refoulment to not deport those who have well founded fears of persecution in their own country. The Pakistani Supreme Court’s bail order, SAHR’s observations and common knowledge about blasphemy law victims in Pakistan clearly indicates dangers Mansha may face in Pakistan, including death.
The agreement dated December 7, 2005 between the government and UNHCR allows UNHCR to carry out its international protection and humanitarian assistance functions in favour of refugees and asylum seekers and grants UNHCR unimpeded access to refugees and asylum seekers at all times.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake preached adherence to international law and humanitarianism when Sri Lanka rescued Iranian sailors from a ship torpedoed by the US in a courageous, principled action amid wars between global powers. It earned Sri Lanka much respect internationally and from Sri Lankans as evidenced by support extended by local people in Galle towards the rescued sailors. While generally tolerating the temporary staying of asylum seekers and refugees in Sri Lanka, previous governments have resorted to deporting asylum seekers from the airport. This is a practice that must stop, considering legal obligations as well as humane, spiritual heritage that Sri Lanka claims to practice and to show that commitments to international law and humanitarianism must not be selective.
[i] Criminal Petition No. 883-L of 2022, decided on 23rd August, 2022, against the order dated 12.05.2022 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No. 18600-B of 2022
[ii] Letter to Sri Lankan Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Public Security dated April 1, 2026
