In a significant legal development, Adil Raja has suffered a complete defeat in his appeal against a defamation judgment at the UK Court of Appeal. The case, initially decided in favor of Brigadier (retd) Rashid Naseer by the London High Court on October 9, last year, has now been conclusively upheld. Lord Justice Warby, presiding over the appeal, made it clear that the defamation case and its verdict bear no connection to the state of Pakistan or the violent attacks on Raja and Shahzad Akbar last December, which were carried out by an organized group.
The senior judge’s ruling effectively closes the door on any further legal challenges by Raja, ordering him to comply fully with the original court’s decision. This means Raja is legally obligated to pay approximately £300,000 in damages and legal expenses to Naseer. The Court of Appeal’s judgment reinforces the earlier findings by Judge Richard Spearman KC, who had ruled in October 2025 that Raja’s defamatory statements against Naseer were baseless and unsupported by any factual evidence.
Judge Spearman’s initial ruling not only awarded Naseer £50,000 in damages but also imposed an injunction preventing Raja from repeating the false accusations. Additionally, Raja was mandated to publish a summary of the judgment, publicly acknowledging Naseer’s victory and the defamatory nature of Raja’s claims. Despite these clear directives, Raja sought to overturn the verdict on four legal grounds and attempted to introduce new evidence related to the attacks on him and Akbar, hoping to link these incidents to his ongoing appeal.
Raja’s four grounds of appeal centered on alleged legal errors in the original judgment: that the judge misapplied the serious harm test, relied on a presumption Parliament had abolished, required proof of actual or likely serious harm, and incorrectly shifted the evidential burden. Alongside these points, Raja argued that fresh evidence concerning the December attacks on him and Akbar—who have both faced violent assaults—should influence the appeal. He suggested these attacks were retaliatory, connected to his decision to challenge the defamation ruling.
In support of his application to introduce new evidence, Raja submitted a witness statement outlining several claims. He asserted that after the judgment, he published a video about Osama Bin Laden which triggered adverse actions from Pakistani authorities, including an extradition request tied to his journalistic work on Pakistan’s military and state institutions. He also detailed personal attacks: Akbar was assaulted at home, suffering serious injuries; Raja’s own residence was reportedly ransacked; and he claimed to have been labeled a terrorist due to his journalism and his appeal efforts. Furthermore, Raja mentioned his conviction in Pakistan for involvement in the May 9 unrest, a charge unrelated to the defamation case.
Supporting statements from Shaheen Sehbai and Colonel (retd) Syed Akbar Hussain highlighted their own convictions by Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Court linked to the May 9 unrest, emphasizing these matters were separate from the publications at the heart of the defamation suit. Naseer’s legal team strongly opposed the introduction of this fresh evidence, describing it as irrelevant, disjointed, and abusive. They emphasized the absence of any credible proof connecting Naseer to the attacks on Raja and Akbar or suggesting these assaults were in retaliation for the appeal.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Warby thoroughly reviewed the evidence concerning alleged repressive actions by Pakistani authorities against Raja and two others after December 4, 2025, the date the appeal was filed. The judge acknowledged the assertion of a causal link between the appeal and these actions but found no convincing or coherent explanation supporting this claim. He concluded that none of Raja’s four sub-grounds for appeal had a realistic chance of success.
Lord Justice Warby further noted it was unlikely that Pakistani authorities would convict Raja in absentia on terrorism charges simply because he launched an appeal. He underscored the lack of any indication that either Naseer or the Pakistani government felt threatened by the appeal process. This judgment solidifies Naseer’s position and effectively ends Raja’s legal avenues to contest the defamation ruling.
The origins of this defamation case date back to August 2022 when Naseer initiated proceedings against Raja over ten publications made on Raja’s social media platforms—Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook—between June 14 and 29, 2022. The court found nine of these posts to be seriously defamatory, causing substantial harm to Naseer’s reputation. The trial delved deeply into the accusations levied by Raja, touching on broader issues such as Pakistan’s media landscape, political turmoil including the removal of Imran Khan’s government, the killing of journalist Arshad Sharif, and the ethical responsibilities of journalism in the country.
During the July 2025 trial, Raja defended his statements by invoking the defenses of truth and public interest. However, to succeed, he needed to prove that his allegations were true or substantially true, a burden he failed to meet. Naseer was represented by Barrister David Lemer from Doughty Street Chambers alongside Ushrat Sultana and Sadia Qureshi of Stone White Solicitors. Raja’s legal team included Barrister Simon Harding, instructed by Nasir Khan of Gunnercooke LLP.
Adding to the complexity of the case, seven individuals have been charged with attacking Raja and Akbar roughly three months ago. The accused—Asaf Hussain Afsar, Mark Regan, Liam McGarry, Louis Regan, Clark McAulay, Doneto Brammer, and Karl Blackbird—are scheduled to face trial in mid-2026. These violent incidents, however, have been ruled unrelated to the defamation proceedings by the UK judiciary.
Overall, the Court of Appeal’s decision marks a decisive moment in this protracted legal battle, reaffirming the original judgment against Adil Raja and emphasizing the independence of the defamation case from external political or violent events. Raja is now legally compelled to fulfill the financial obligations imposed by the court, bringing an end to this chapter of the dispute.
