🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

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 issue for the nation's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."