Brigadier (Rtd) Rashid Naseer Victorious in Defamation Case Against Major (Rtd) Adil Raja

Brigadier (retired) Rashid Naseer has overwhelmingly won his defamation lawsuit against Major (retired) Adil Raja in the London High Court, according to the court’s ruling.

Judge Richard Spearman KC of the UK High Court determined that Raja defamed Naseer with groundless accusations lacking factual support. Consequently, the court awarded Naseer £50,000 in damages and issued an injunction to prevent Raja from repeating these unsubstantiated claims.

The court further mandated that Raja release a summary of the judgement, affirming Naseer’s victory and the defamatory nature of the allegations. Raja is also responsible for covering Naseer’s legal expenses, which the court has assessed to be approximately £300,000.

Brig (retd) Naseer journeyed from Pakistan in July of this year to attend the week-long proceedings in the third week of July 2025. He remains in London as the judgement is announced.

The retired intelligence official stated: “Today, my name is cleared. Following a demanding 3-year legal battle in the high court, justice has finally been served. This should serve as a lesson to those who deliberately spread falsehoods, incite animosity, and defame others for sensationalism. No court, whether in Pakistan or elsewhere, will support such actions. I am thankful to London High Court Judge Richard Spearman KC for his decision. I also extend my gratitude to my Barrister David Lemer, and solicitors, Ushrat Sultana and Sadia Qureshi of Stone White Solicitors, for their dedicated efforts on this case. This triumph belongs not only to me but to all who have been unjustly victimized by similar individuals.”

Naseer initiated his defamation case against Raja in August 2022 concerning ten publications disseminated between June 14 and 29, 2022, on Raja’s platforms including Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. The court concluded that nine of these publications were significantly defamatory toward Naseer, causing him considerable harm.

These publications asserted the following: the Punjab elections were delayed because Rashid Naseer had seized control of the Lahore High Court (June 14, 2022); Rashid Naseer held multiple meetings with Asif Ali Zardari to discuss manipulating elections (June 19, 2022); Rashid Naseer is a corrupt element within the ISI and Pakistan Army who will be eliminated when the time is right (June 19, 2022); Rashid Naseer established an election cell in Sector Headquarters Lahore to rig elections for PDM parties, bribing politicians to vote against PTI candidates, abusing his authority, and misusing substantial unaccounted funds against the PTI, including using the Police and Dolphin Force to harass PTI supporters (June 19, 2022); Rashid Naseer prompted the police to act on his behalf by making a false bribery allegation against Adil Raja (June 29, 2022); Rashid Naseer is involved in horse-trading for General Bajwa (June 29, 2022); Rashid Naseer filed a complaint against Adil Raja to defame him and prevent him from obtaining his identity documents (June 29, 2022); Rashid Naseer had Adil Raja’s brother-in-law arrested (June 29, 2022); and Rashid Naseer played a key role in regime change, accumulating billionaire status through his corrupt activities (June 29, 2022).

The trial scrutinized Raja’s accusations against Naseer, the condition of media and politics in Pakistan, the killing of Arshad Sharif, the ousting of Imran Khan’s administration, ethical journalistic standards, Pakistan’s establishment, and the reasons Naseer became the target of Raja’s social media campaign.

During the trial in July, Raja defended his claims based on truth and public interest. To validate the truth defense, Raja needed to demonstrate that his claims were accurate or substantially accurate.

Raja asserted that all his published material about Naseer was truthful, yet he presented no evidence to the UK High Court judge to support these claims.

The testimony from Raja’s three witnesses—Shahzad Akbar, Shaheen Sehbai, and Syed Akbar Hussain—also failed to substantiate a truth defense. None of Raja’s witnesses professed direct knowledge of Naseer’s alleged misconduct. Shaheen Sehbai emphasized that he did not know if Naseer bore any personal responsibility.

On the trial’s second day, Raja abandoned his truth defense after the judge cautioned him that he had not provided evidence to support his allegations against Naseer.

Raja then pursued a defense based on public interest, which the judge also questioned. For this defense, Raja needed to prove that the false allegations concerned a matter of public interest and that he genuinely believed publishing them served the public interest.

Judge Richard Spearman KC observed that Raja provided no contemporaneous documents to substantiate either the information he received from his sources or the actions he took to verify it. He offered no justification for this lack of evidence in his written statements.

At one point, Raja referenced written records described as diaries but later clarified they contained no relevant information to the case.

The judge indicated that he was not convinced that Raja’s allegations originated from credible sources because (i) he could not determine whether Raja’s testimony was reliable, a case of mistaken recollection, or exaggeration; and (ii) Raja provided no contemporary record to support his claims.

Raja failed to persuade the judge that his sources provided information to support his allegations against Naseer, causing his public interest defense to fail.

Naseer’s Barrister contended that Raja was interpreting general information as specific allegations against Naseer, even though the source material did not contain such allegations.

High Court Judge Richard Spearman KC cited three examples: (1) Adil Raja claimed the Fact-Finding Report on Arshad Sharif’s killing officially implicated the ISI. The judge found this to be false, with no mention of the ISI in the report’s key findings; (2) Adil Raja claimed General Asad Durrani confirmed in a tweet that Naseer misused his position to enforce the military junta’s illegal agenda. The judge found the tweet did not mention Naseer; (3) Adil Raja cited an Amnesty International tweet about journalist disappearances, which the judge found did not exist.

Regarding the defamatory statements published by Raja, the judge highlighted Raja’s claim that Naseer interfered in elections by seizing control of the Lahore High Court.

Shahzad Akbar, Raja’s witness, contradicted this, stating the Lahore High Court was ensuring elections proceeded despite its orders not being implemented.

The judge determined there were no reasonable grounds to believe publishing the claim that Naseer met with Asif Ali Zardari to manipulate elections was in the public interest, which Naseer strongly denied.

Raja presented material that postdated his defamatory statements, which the judge ruled could not have been relied upon at the time of publication.

The judge noted Raja provided no evidence of efforts to verify the alleged meeting between Asif Ali Zardari and Naseer, such as detailing calls made and when. “The fact that he has nothing to produce is remarkable,” the judge stated, questioning whether Raja’s sources had a vendetta against Naseer and noting the absence of contemporary records showing Raja investigated this issue at the time.

The judge acknowledged Raja’s witnesses were articulate but stressed their evidence lacked material value and did not convince the court of Naseer’s alleged wrongdoings.

The judge found that while Shaheen Sehbai criticized Naseer and alleged issues with the ISI and international press reporting on the agency, Sehbai failed to provide relevant evidence. The judge noted that Sehbai’s evidence did not materially assist Raja and that Sehbai did not allege “corrupt practices” against Naseer in his witness statement.

Syed Akbar Hussain testified he did not personally know Naseer and had no knowledge of Raja’s allegations.

The London High Court learned that Shahzad Akbar asked Naseer in June 2022 to pressure the courts to convict Shehbaz Sharif swiftly, but Naseer refused.

Shahzad Akbar claimed he sought an end to judicial interference by the establishment, but Naseer’s lawyer argued that the meeting focused on Shahzad Akbar’s obsession with manipulating the judiciary to convict Shehbaz Sharif by any means necessary.

The judge found Shahzad Akbar offered his own opinions but could not verify the events’ specifics or Raja’s sources. The judge criticized Shahzad Akbar’s approach, mirroring Raja’s error, believing Raja’s political analysis mattered more than the basis for his allegations, which the judge deemed incorrect.

The judge stated the case attracted public interest due to Raja’s suggestion that the ISI brought or funded the claim. Raja had alleged the claim was a SLAPP case, but Raja’s Barrister did not reference SLAPP in closing submissions, and the judge did not believe it was ISI-funded.

The judge concluded all the words complained of had a seriously defamatory meaning and their inherent tendency to cause harm to reputation was equally great. He also found that the extent of the publications, in each instance, was massive in the form of likes, shares, and the grapevine effect that they caused serious harm to Naseer’s reputation, with further defamatory impact, and that no effort was made by Raja to seek Naseer’s version.

Naseer was represented by Barrister David Lemer of Doughty Street Chambers and Ushrat Sultana and Sadia Qureshi of Stone White Solicitors. Raja was represented by Barrister Simon Harding.