🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

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

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."