Britain's highest court has cleared the way for two Bahraini dissidents to sue the Gulf kingdom over alleged spyware attacks, rejecting a bid by Manama to claim state immunity. The ruling, delivered by a narrow 3-2 majority on Monday, marks a pivotal moment for legal accountability in cross-border digital surveillance. Main Developments The Supreme Court dismissed Bahrain's argument that the alleged hacking occurred outside UK jurisdiction, finding that the surveillance took effect on computers located in Britain. This decision upholds earlier rulings from the High Court in 2023 and the Court of Appeal in 2024. Saeed Shehabi, a journalist and founder of a political party opposing Bahrain's ruling Khalifa family, and Moosa Mohammed, a Bahraini refugee living in the UK, filed the lawsuit in London's High Court in 2020. They accuse the Bahraini government of infecting their computers in 2011 with FinSpy spyware, which can log keystrokes, track locations, and monitor activities remotely. Both men seek damages for what they describe as psychiatric harm. Read also: Britain's Gaza stance under Starmer: Scrutinizing new cabinet picks Bahrain has denied the hacking allegations and argued that any acts took place outside UK territory, entitling it to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court's ruling opens the door for the case to proceed to trial. Background The case is part of a growing wave of litigation testing whether states and surveillance firms can be held liable in Western courts for spyware deployed against critics abroad. Rights groups have long accused Bahrain of surveilling dissidents and journalists, and this lawsuit follows similar efforts, including WhatsApp's ongoing case in the United States against the NSO Group over Pegasus spyware. Shehabi and Mohammed alleged that the FinSpy infection occurred during a period of heightened political unrest in Bahrain, following the 2011 Arab Spring protests that challenged the monarchy's rule. Both men have since lived in the UK, where they continue to face risks from remote surveillance, according to their legal claims. Why It Matters The ruling establishes a significant precedent: foreign states can be sued in UK courts for remotely surveilling individuals inside Britain, even if the hacking itself was directed from abroad. This could embolden other activists, journalists, and refugees to seek legal recourse against governments that use spyware to target them across borders. For Bahrain, the decision undermines its efforts to shield itself from accountability in British courts. The case also highlights the broader legal challenges posed by modern surveillance technologies that operate across jurisdictions, testing the limits of state immunity laws. What's Next The case will now proceed to trial in the High Court, where the merits of the hacking allegations will be examined. Bahrain may continue to contest jurisdiction or seek alternative legal avenues to block the lawsuit. The outcome could influence similar cases pending in other Western courts, including the WhatsApp-NSO dispute in the United States.