🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."