🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."