🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities 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 high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation 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 initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers 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 left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."