🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

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

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities 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, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased 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 non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

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

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."