🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, 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 computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose 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 loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."