**British Court Dismisses Bahrain’s Attempt to Block Activists’ Spyware Lawsuit**
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has dismissed Bahrain's appeal to claim state immunity in a lawsuit filed by two Bahraini dissidents who allege that the Bahraini government used spyware to monitor them. The ruling, delivered on July 27, 2026, by a narrow 3-2 majority, sets a significant legal precedent regarding the accountability of foreign states in cases involving remote surveillance.
The lawsuit was initiated by Saeed Shehabi, a journalist and founder of a political party opposing the Khalifa royal family's rule in Bahrain, and Moosa Mohammed, a Bahraini refugee residing in the UK. The plaintiffs accused the Bahraini government of infecting their computers with FinSpy spyware in 2011. This software is designed to log keystrokes, track locations, and monitor activities remotely, raising serious concerns about privacy and security.
Shehabi and Mohammed filed their lawsuit in London's High Court in 2020, seeking damages for "psychiatric harm" resulting from the alleged surveillance. Bahrain, however, denied the hacking allegations and contended that the activities in question occurred outside of UK jurisdiction, which would grant the state immunity from prosecution.
Initially, the High Court of Justice in London rejected Bahrain's immunity argument in 2023, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2024. Following these rulings, Bahrain made a final appeal to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the alleged acts of surveillance constituted actions carried out within the UK. The court emphasized that the claimants and their computers were located in Britain when the spyware was reportedly deployed, thus allowing the case to advance to trial.
This ruling is part of a broader trend in legal proceedings that examine whether states and surveillance companies can be held accountable in Western courts for the use of spyware against critics abroad. Similar cases have emerged, including WhatsApp's ongoing lawsuit in the United States against the NSO Group, which is associated with the notorious Pegasus spyware.
Human rights organizations have long accused the Bahraini government of employing surveillance tactics against dissidents and journalists, raising significant concerns about freedom of expression and the safety of individuals opposing the regime. The Supreme Court's decision may pave the way for increased scrutiny of state-sponsored cyber surveillance and could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.
As the case progresses, it will likely attract considerable attention from both legal experts and human rights advocates, who are keen to see how the UK courts navigate the complex intersection of state sovereignty and individual rights in the digital age.