🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."