Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting 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 compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially 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 hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

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

Bahrain to Argue at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations

Court Proceedings Context

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

Claims and Evidence

Software Capabilities

Judicial Analysis

Defense Position

Plaintiffs' Statements

Legal Perspective

June 2026 Blog Roll

May 2026 Blog Roll

April 2026 Blog Roll

March 2026 Blog Roll

February 2026 Blog Roll

January 2026 Blog Roll

December 2025 Blog Roll

November 2025 Blog Roll

October 2025 Blog Roll

Popular Posts

Sponsored News