🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed 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 both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."