🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Allegations and Proof

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

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if 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 personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – 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 diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."