🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government 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 residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect 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, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."