🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."