🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."