🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

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

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, 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 Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."