🔗 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 spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case 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 equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. 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 brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

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 clients, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."