🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."