🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – 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 permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."