🔗 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 deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "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 target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

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

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."