1 Dec 2025 | Bahrain, Europe and Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom
While Donald Trump might dismiss the most egregious actions of Gulf States as “things happen”, dissidents are taking justice into their own hands. The Saudi comedian and activist Ghanem Al-Masarir, for instance, has sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for psychological damage resulting from the misuse of private information, harassment and assault after he was attacked in London in 2018. A core part of Al-Masarir’s case rested on Pegasus spyware, which was found on his phone. Such spyware is difficult to definitively trace back, but in this case the court stated that there was “good evidence” Saudi Arabia was responsible. The High Court also ruled that Saudi Arabia did not have immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, a point the Saudi government appealed in an effort to get the case struck out. They didn’t succeed. The case continues.
A similar case is being heard in the UK’s Supreme Court this week. Saeed Shehabi, a leading Bahraini opposition figure, and Moosa Mohammed, a pro-democracy activist and photojournalist, allege the Bahraini government used FinSpy software back in 2011 to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, also resulting in psychological harm. Like Pegasus, FinSpy can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices. The hacks occurred months after anti-government protests began in Bahrain. Shehabi and Mohammed were in touch with other activists, journalists and political prisoners.
Bahrain denies being behind the hack and is also claiming state immunity. They’ve lost twice on these grounds in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. Now they’ve taken their case to the Supreme Court, saying prior judges have misinterpreted section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 and unduly broadened the scope of its exception to immunity. Judges have argued to the contrary – that under Section 5 a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission which happened in the UK. The Supreme Court can now clarify this point once and for all.
It’s an important moment. If the Supreme Court rules against Bahrain, it sends a clear message about accountability and rule of law on UK shores. For too long the UK has been a playground for the world’s autocrats, who’ve targeted their overseas dissidents here through a variety of means. It would also be a moment of victory for the victims themselves. The psychological impact of surveillance is real. We’ve seen this in action, with Al-Masarir, a contributor of ours. He was due to perform at an Index comedy event two years ago and had to pull out because of poor mental health. The damage caused to these individuals can’t be undone, but at least it can be acknowledged. That’s something.
1 Oct 2025 | Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia
You’re seeing something strange in Riyadh: comedians telling jokes. The posters are up, and the message from the Kingdom is clear: look how fun and open we are now. Mohammed bin Salman wants you to see a nation laughing, and to believe he is the one who set it free.
But I know the truth. I know that in this new, “reformed” Saudi Arabia, the most dangerous thing you can be is a comedian who actually tells the truth.
My crime was satire. From my home in London, I used comedy to poke fun at the crown prince and the absurdities of his rule. The response was a full-scale campaign of transnational repression.
As recently as 2024, we learned just how far MBS would go to silence a critic. The crown prince personally lobbied Lord David Cameron, former UK prime minister and then foreign minister, during a high-level meeting in Riyadh. He did not merely express displeasure; he specifically “pressed for the UK to halt a legal case” I had brought against the Saudi state over its campaign of harassment against me. To make his demand unmistakable, he explicitly “warned that UK interests would be damaged if the case was allowed to proceed”.
Let that sink in. The de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia did not just ask; he threatened a senior British minister. He demanded that the UK government trample its own independent judiciary and abandon the rule of law to serve his personal vendetta against a satirist. When a comedian’s jokes are such a threat that a prince must threaten a foreign power to stop them, it reveals the staggering fragility of his regime.
This is the real state of comedy in Saudi Arabia. The Riyadh Comedy Festival isn’t a celebration of free expression; it’s a carefully staged performance where the only unwritten rule is the most important one: thou shalt not mock MBS.
The comedians on that stage are performing in a gilded cage. They can joke about traffic, perhaps, or annoying family members. But the royal family, the war in Yemen, the imprisonment of activists, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi — these topics are utterly forbidden. The most powerful censor won’t be a government agent in the front row; it will be the fear in every performer’s mind. They know the consequences. They have seen how the state treats its critics.
What the regime is selling with this festival is a lie wrapped in a laugh track. It is a public relations campaign designed to make the world forget about the activists in prison, the dissidents they have murdered, and the exiles like me they continue to hunt. They want you to see a land of laughter, so you stop listening to the screams.
True comedy is subversive. It speaks truth to power. It punctures the egos of the arrogant and gives a voice to the voiceless. A state that cannot tolerate a joke is a state that is deeply insecure and fundamentally weak.
So, as the world sees headlines about the Riyadh Comedy Festival, I ask you to look past the glitter. Remember my story. Remember that for simply telling jokes, the crown prince himself tried to strong-arm a foreign government into abandoning its own laws. In MBS’s Saudi Arabia, the punchline is always prison.
17 Jan 2025 | Middle East and North Africa, News, Saudi Arabia
Last month’s official confirmation that Saudi Arabia has been chosen as the host of the 2034 World Cup is evidence that sport has a long way to go when it comes to the protection of human rights and freedoms.
Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of the most prestigious competition in international football is just the state’s latest foray into the sporting world. The state has already been accused by critics of sportswashing – using sport to divert attention from its bad practices – due to other hosting and funding duties in Formula 1 races and golf tournaments, amongst other events.
It is no surprise that Saudi Arabia is keen to enhance its international standing; the nation caused global outrage in 2018 when journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, an act that is believed by US intelligence to be state sanctioned but which Saudi Arabia strongly denies.
Lawyer Rodney Dixon, who has represented Khashoggi’s fiancée Hatice Cengiz, has warned against a Saudi World Cup. “FIFA should not permit Saudi Arabia to host the World Cup if it continues to flagrantly disregard human rights in several areas in breach of Fifa’s own policies,” he jointly wrote in a legal submission with other legal experts. “It is obvious that Saudi Arabia falls very far short of those requirements.”
Concerns have been raised about Saudi Arabia’s commitment to protect human rights and freedoms in other areas such as their poor record on women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, treatment of migrant workers and lack of media freedom. In Freedom House’s latest Freedom in the World report the state was categorised as not free, as “Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties”. Such a description hardly lends itself to the idea that a Saudi World Cup is deserved, or even well intentioned – despite the insistences from football’s governing authorities.
FIFA’s decision to award the World Cup to Saudi Arabia has therefore already been held under much scrutiny. The legitimacy of the decision-making process itself has been called into question after the governing body implemented a fast-track application process which resulted in Saudi Arabia’s bid being unopposed.
The decision is also potentially a violation of FIFA’s own human rights policy, which was adopted by the organisation in 2017 and pledges to “go beyond its responsibility to respect human rights… by taking measures to promote the protection of human rights”. By awarding the world’s most-watched sporting event to a nation with such an unfavourable record on human rights and freedoms, FIFA falls far short of such promises.
However, FIFA isn’t the only governing body to back the move. The Football Association (FA) – England’s leading authority on football – also supported Saudi Arabia’s bid, a move that has been defended by FA chair Debbie Hewitt.
A statement from the FA said: “[The Saudi Arabian Football Federation] assured us that they are fully committed to providing a safe and welcome environment for all fans.” This line was repeated by Saudi Arabia’s sports minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Turki Al Faisal, who claimed that “everyone is welcome” at the tournament. However, with same-sex activity strictly forbidden in the state, it’s unlikely that LGBTQ+ people will feel confident about such a warm welcome – Jake Daniels, the only openly gay active male professional footballer in the UK, told the BBC last year that he “wouldn’t feel safe” at a Saudi World Cup.
Saudi Arabia has already shown its desire to become a big name in the footballing world. Having hosted the 2023 Club World Cup, they have since been awarded the privilege of hosting the 2025 Supercoppa Italiana and the 2027 Asian Cup, as well as agreeing a deal to host the Spanish Super Cup until at least 2029.
Further ventures have also been made into a number of different sports, with the state hosting major events such as the boxing match between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, which took place last year and was described as “the biggest pay-per-view fight in history”.
Saudi Arabia defends itself against claims that it is utilising sport as a means of distracting the public from their poor human rights record by suggesting that it is using sport as a means of changing attitudes. However, similar arguments were used by Qatar when protests were made against it hosting the 2022 World Cup, but such change has failed to materialise.
We have a duty to question the motivations behind the sudden interest of undemocratic states in sporting events, and to call out the human rights abuses in such states that prevent citizens from exercising their freedom of speech and expression. Football – and sport in general – holds a great deal of soft power as a political arena due to its popularity and reach. Those who seek to exploit such power at the expense of rights and freedoms should be condemned, not supported.
1 Dec 2022 | Saudi Arabia, Tyrant of the Year 2022
“Mohammed bin Salman should be awarded the title of ‘tyrant of the year’ not only because of his track record of censorship and suppression, but also because of the potential for violent tyranny to come” says Emma Sandvik Ling, partnerships and fundraising manager at Index on Censorship.
At only 37 years old, Mohammed bin Salman, colloquially referred to as MBS, is the youngest of the tyrants on our list. He therefore has the potential to offer a suppressive regime for decades to come.
In 2022, MBS celebrated his appointment as prime minister. The crown prince and de facto ruler has held various political positions since he became minister of defence in 2015, though his father King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 86, still holds the throne.
While Saudi Arabia is committed to a more liberal, globalist image, those calling for freedom of expression still face harsh punishments. In October, three members of the Al-Huwaiti tribe were sentenced to death for resisting eviction caused by the $500 billion NEOM development. Meanwhile, the University of Leeds student Salma al-Shehab has been sentenced to 34 years in prison for retweeting Saudi activists. On 12 March, 81 men were executed for “terrorism and holding deviant beliefs” including 41 who were believed to be minority Shia Muslims who took part in anti-govenrment demonstrations in 2011. Women, minority groups, activists, and journalists alike face severe consequences for speaking out against the regime.
Adding insult to injury, Bin Salman’s behaviour appears to be tolerated – if not accepted – internationally. In November 2022 the US State department granted the crown prince diplomatic immunity from prosecution over the brutal assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This is despite President Biden’s repeated assurance that he would hold MBS accountable for his involvement. Due to Saudi-Arabia’s important financial and strategic ties, MBS looks poised to rule for years to come.
“As the world watches on, bin Salman continues to exert power in horrific ways. His rule will likely continue to restrict basic freedoms in Saudi Arabia and beyond,” says Sandvik Ling.
