🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."