🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."