🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."