🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus 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 Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government 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 supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if 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 immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into 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 supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."