According to reports, the court imposed substantial damages and legal costs — estimated at around £300,000 — on Raja for contemptuous and unverified statements made on social media.

The judgment underscored that online defamation and smear campaigns will not be tolerated under British law.

The court further ordered Raja to bear all legal expenses and to publish the summary of the judgment across all his social media platforms, issue a public apology, and provide a written undertaking that he will not repeat such allegations in the future.

In its verdict, the court stated that Raja’s accusations against Brigadier (Retd) Rashid Naseer — about corruption, electoral manipulation, and abuse of authority — were false, baseless, and unsupported by any credible evidence. It added that these claims had seriously damaged Naseer’s personal and professional reputation.

The case was originally filed in August 2022 by Brigadier (Retd) Naseer, who previously served as Punjab’s ISI intelligence chief.

The plaintiff alleged that Raja had launched a targeted online campaign against him, involving defamatory tweets, videos, and social media posts.

Evidence presented before the court revealed that Raja’s campaign began in June 2022, when he accused Naseer of “taking control” of the Lahore High Court to influence upcoming elections.

He later claimed that Naseer had held meetings with Asif Ali Zardari to affect political outcomes — allegations for which no proof was ever provided.

Rashid Naseer’s legal team told the court that Raja had failed to submit any verifiable documents or evidence to support his claims.

Earlier, the court had already dismissed Raja’s request to have the case thrown out and fined him £10,000 for non-cooperation in the proceedings.

Reacting to the verdict, Raja wrote on social media platform X (formerly Twitter): “Today is a disappointing day. The judge was not with us.”

Adil Raja, who moved to the UK in 2022, has since been a critic of Pakistan’s military and intelligence institutions, frequently making controversial claims online.

However, in this case, the court found that none of his statements were substantiated by credible evidence.