- Court had warned Raja of imprisonment for any non-compliance.
- Judgment summary ordered published across all online platforms.
- Injunction blocks Raja from repeating allegations about Naseer.
LONDON: YouTuber and commentator Adil Raja has published a summary of the decision against him in the landmark defamation case victory secured by Brigadier (retired) Rashid Naseer at the UK High Court, confirming that he had made “a number of defamatory allegations” against Rashid Naseer and “had no defence to his claim”.
Raja, complying with a London High Court order, has confirmed on all his social media platforms that “I made a number of defamatory allegations about him and I had no defence to his claim” — and also published the full judgment link on X, Facebook, website and YouTube.
A day earlier, the UK High Court issued a stark warning of imprisonment and contempt of court to Raja after the High Court of Justice ordered him to comply with the judicial order and injunction requirements in the case of Brigadier (retired) Naseer.
The penal notice, printed at the top of the court’s order, made it clear that Raja faces the possibility of prison, fines, or seizure of assets if he fails to obey the ruling made in favour of Naseer, who won the defamation case in October this year against Raja over false allegations of corruption, election manipulation and blackmail.
The court directed Raja to publish a summary of the judgment. This summary must appear on all of his online platforms, including X (Twitter), Facebook, his website, and his three YouTube channels.
It must remain published for 28 days and must be pinned or placed in a prominent position, depending on the platform. The court provided a summary to Raja, which is now published with a link to the judgment.
The summary reads: “By a judgment dated 9th October 2025 I was ordered by the High Court in London to pay Mr Rashid Naseer £50,000 in damages for libel, in addition to his legal costs, on the grounds that between 14 and 29 June 2022 I made a number of defamatory allegations about him and I had no defence to his claim.”
Through an injunction in the order, judge Richard Spearman KC has banned Raja (whether directly, or by his employees, servants, agents or howsoever) from publishing or causing to be published any statement referring to the Naseer by name or other identifying characteristic which states or implies (whether by ordinary meaning or extrinsic facts) that: Naseer had taken complete control of the Lahore High Court; had several meetings with Asif Ali Zardari in Lahore in 2022 to discuss election manipulation; that Naseer is a disgrace (“black sheep”) in the ISI and Pakistan Army; set up an election cell in the Sector Headquarters in Lahore in 2022 to rig elections in Pakistan; abused his position against PTI; sinned destroyed his chances of a promised life in the hereafter just to serve one person; and made false cases against the defendant.
After a full trial held in July 2025, the court found that Raja had no defence to the claims of defamation and that the allegations he spread about Naseer were wholly unfounded.
As a result, Naseer was awarded £50,000 in damages and around £260,000 on account of his legal costs.
The judgment, delivered by Richard Spearman KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, concludes a lengthy legal battle over a series of damaging allegations Raja made online between 14 and 29 June 2022 against Rashid Naseer.
Naseer had started his defamation claim against Raja in August 2022 over ten publications — published between June 14 and 29, 2022, on Raja’s Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. The court found that nine of these publications were seriously defamatory to Naseer and caused him serious harm.
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.
Meanwhile, Raja said in a statement: “There has been false propaganda claiming that the High Court ordered me to issue an ‘apology’. This is incorrect. The Court required me to publish a mandatory summary of the judgment, exactly as prescribed under Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013.
“I have complied fully and published the summary on all my platforms in accordance with the order. The content of that summary is set by the Court — it is not an apology, nor was I ordered to apologise. Any claims to the contrary are misleading. I remain committed to following the legal process and complying with the Court’s directions.”
