🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

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 court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly 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 use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney 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 numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."