🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust 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 state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology 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."