Bahrain has lost a legal bid to claim state immunity in a lawsuit brought by two Bahraini dissidents in a UK court over the alleged use of spyware. The dissidents, who have been vocal critics of the Bahraini government, accuse the Gulf state of using sophisticated spyware to monitor their communications and infringe on their rights.
The lawsuit, filed by activists who fled Bahrain and now reside in the UK, claims that Bahraini authorities used Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli NSO Group, to hack into their phones and gather information on their activities. Pegasus has gained global notoriety for its use by various governments to target dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders. The plaintiffs argue that the Bahraini government’s actions were a direct violation of their privacy and fundamental freedoms.
In response to the lawsuit, Bahrain sought to dismiss the case on the grounds of state immunity, arguing that as a sovereign state, it could not be sued in a foreign court. However, the UK High Court rejected this appeal, ruling that state immunity does not apply in cases involving allegations of human rights abuses, such as unauthorized surveillance and breaches of privacy.
The decision marks a significant setback for Bahrain, which has faced mounting criticism for its treatment of political opponents and human rights activists. It also sets a precedent for similar cases involving state surveillance and human rights violations, particularly where the use of powerful cyber-espionage tools is concerned.
The ruling means that the dissidents’ lawsuit can proceed, allowing for a full examination of Bahrain’s alleged use of spyware against individuals residing abroad. Human rights advocates have welcomed the decision, viewing it as a major step towards holding governments accountable for abuses carried out through digital means.
One of the plaintiffs, who has been campaigning for greater democracy in Bahrain, stated that the ruling gives hope to those who have suffered from state-sponsored surveillance. He emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, especially when governments use invasive technologies to silence dissent.
The Bahraini government, meanwhile, has denied the allegations and expressed disappointment with the court’s decision. Officials maintain that Bahrain has acted within the bounds of law and in the interest of national security. However, international rights groups have long accused the country of repressing political opposition through harsh measures, including digital surveillance and arbitrary detention.
The UK court’s decision may have broader implications, potentially opening the door for more legal challenges by activists and journalists who believe they have been targeted by spyware linked to state actors. With surveillance technology becoming more widespread, this ruling underscores the growing importance of judicial oversight in cases where governments are accused of infringing on individual freedoms through digital means.