LONDON: Adil Raja has lost his appeal on all grounds at the UK Court of Appeal in the defamation case won originally by Brigadier (retd) Rashid Naseer at the London High Court on October 9 last year – with Lord Justice Warby ruling that the defamation case and its outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the State of Pakistan or last December’s attacks on Adil Raja and Shahzad Akbar by an organised gang.
The court of appeal ruling by the senior judge, Lord Justice Warby, concludes the case absolutely in Rashid Naseer’s favour, ordering that Raja cannot seek a review or appeal against the decision anymore and must comply with the original court decision – which means that he will have to pay around £300,000 to Rashid Naseer in damages and legal costs.
Adil Farooq Raja had appealed at the Court of Appeal against the October 2025 decision by Judge Richard Spearman KC who had ruled that Raja defamed Naseer, without any factual basis and evidence, made false allegations and therefore awarded £50,000 in damages to Naseer, an injunction restraining Raja from repeating his baseless and false allegations ever again. The judge had also ordered Raja to publish a summary of the judgment confirming that Naseer had won the case and that the allegations were defamatory.
Adil Raja had appealed against the judgment on four grounds but also tried to argue his appeal was based on the “fresh evidence” related to attacks on him and Shahzad Akbar by seven people who have been charged.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Warby agreed with Brigadier (retd) Rashid Naseer’s position. Lord Justice Warby in his order wrote that he had carefully read the evidence “concerned with repressive actions said to have been taken by the Pakistani authorities towards the defendant and two others on and after Dec 4, 2025”. The judge continued, “That was after the date of filing of this appeal. But it by no means follows that it was because of the appeal, as the applicant maintains. Whilst the evidence asserts a causal link, it does not appear to me to contain any coherent and credible explanation of why that assertion is made.”
Lord Justice Warby found that “none of the four sub-grounds of appeal has a realistic prospect of success”. He also stated, “It does not appear to me (for instance) inherently likely that the authorities have, as suggested, convicted the applicant in his absence of terrorism because he launched this appeal. I have explained why I consider that the grounds of appeal lack arguable merit. The claimant/respondent has filed a statement to the same effect. There is nothing before me to indicate that the claimant or the Pakistani authorities felt threatened by the prospects of this appeal”.
