LONDON: In a landmark ruling, the UK High Court has decided in favor of retired ISI Brigadier Rashid Naseer in a defamation case against Pakistani YouTuber and former army major Adil Raja. The court found Raja guilty of making false and defamatory allegations, ordering him to pay nearly £350,000 (approximately PKR 130 million) in damages and legal costs.
The judgment, delivered by High Court Judge Richard Spearman KC, concluded that Adil Raja had defamed Brigadier (R) Rashid Naseer through nine separate online publications across YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. The court declared the allegations—including claims of election rigging, bribery of politicians, manipulation of police forces, and involvement in political horse-trading—as baseless and highly damaging to Naseer’s reputation.
Judge Spearman ordered Raja to pay £50,000 in damages and approximately £300,000 in legal expenses. Additionally, Raja must publish a summary of the judgment across all his media platforms, acknowledging that the claims were false and defamatory. He has also been instructed not to repeat the allegations in the future.
The court dismissed Raja’s defense that the statements were made in public interest, noting his failure to provide credible evidence or reliable sources. The judge further rejected Raja’s claims regarding ISI’s alleged involvement in journalist Arshad Sharif’s murder, stating that the fact-finding report did not implicate the intelligence agency.
Raja’s witnesses—Shaheen Sehbai, Shahzad Akbar, and Syed Akbar Hussain—were unable to substantiate any of the corruption claims against Naseer, and their testimonies were found inconsistent and irrelevant to the core issues of the case.
Reacting to the verdict, Brigadier (R) Rashid Naseer said, “This decision is a reminder that truth prevails over falsehood—whether in Pakistan or anywhere else. It is not just my victory, but a win for every individual who has been maliciously targeted by those spreading chaos for personal gain.”
The trial was held from June 22 to June 27 this year, and the ruling is being hailed as a significant precedent in cross-border defamation litigation involving digital media.
