🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents 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 highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing 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 claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers 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, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."