🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "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 malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

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 foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact 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 permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems 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 matters."