🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."