🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court 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 Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting 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 proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."