🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right 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 Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, 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 overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."