Former serviceman wins defamation case against Adil Raja at London court

#serviceman #wins #defamation #case #Adil #Raja #London #court

According to the verdict, a British High Court judge has ruled against Major (Retd) Adil Raja in the case of defamation filed by Brigadier (Rateed) Rashid Naseer in the London High Court.

Judge Richard Spareman KC has ruled that Raja defamed Nasser without the basis and evidence of the facts, and that is why the court has given Nasser to 000 50,000 damages, this order has stopped Raja from repeating his baseless and false allegations.

The court also ordered the Raja to publish the decision, which confirmed that Naseer had won the case and that the allegations were notorious. Raja will have to pay Nasir’s legal costs, which the court has approved by about $ 300,000.

Brigade (Retd She is in London today after making a verdict.

Retired Senior Intelligence Officer commented: “Today, I proved to be right. After the 3 -year High Court battle, justice was encountered at the end of justice. It allows people to work as a reminder to make people a sensational drama, a reminder of the haters and a reminder of the people, and a reminder of their work, and a reminder of their work. And in this case, not only for me, but such characters have been maliciously targeted.

Nasser launched more than ten publications against Raja in August 2022 – which was published on Raja’s Twitter, YouTube and Facebook between June 14 to 29, 2022. The court found that nine of these publications were seriously notorious for Nasr and were seriously damaged.

These statements were: Punjab elections were not moving as Rashid Naseer took full control of the Lahore High Court (June 14, 2022). Rashid Naseer held several meetings with Asif Ali Zardari to discuss the election manipulation (June 19, 2022). Rashid Naseer is a black crowd in ISI and Pakistan Army which will be abolished at the right time (June 19, 2022): Rashid Naseer used the election cell in the sector’s headquarters to use too much art to increase elections for PDM parties and use too much art to vote against PTI candidates. Force and Dolphin Force to harass PTI supporters (June 19, 2022); Rashid Naseer caused his bid to make a baseless allegation of bribery against Adil Raja (June 29, 2022). Rashid Naseer is trading horses for General Bajwa (June 29, 2022). Rashid Naseer lodged a complaint against Adil Raja so that he could be discredited and stop him from getting his identity papers (June 29, 2022). Rashid Naseer was arrested by Adil Raja’s Bhabhi (June 29, 2022); And Rashid Naseer played a significant role in the change of government and his corrupt methods made him a billionaire (June 29, 2022).

The trial was focused on Raja’s allegations against Nasr. The state of media and politics in Pakistan, the murder of Irshad Sharif, the government of Imran Khan, the moral and responsible journalism, the establishment of Pakistan and Nasser became the focus of Raja’s social media campaign.

During the trial in July this year, Raja requested the defense of truth and public interest. The RA, the RA, had to show that the allegations he made was true or to a great extent.

The Raja had requested that whatever content he had published about Nasser was true, but he did not produce any evidence to a British High Court judge that the allegations were true.

The evidence presented by Raja’s three witnesses – Shahzad Akbar, Shaheen Sahai and Syed Akbar Hussain did not support the defense of the truth. None of the Raja witnesses claimed direct information about alleged corruption against Nasr, and in fact, Shaheen Sehwai emphasized that he did not know whether Nasser had fulfilled any personal responsibility.

On the second day of the trial, Raja abandoned his truthful defense because the judge had warned him that he had not put any evidence or facts before the court to disclose the allegations made about Nasser.

After that, Raja started defending himself in the public interest, which the judge also criticized. The RA, RA, for the defense of the public interest, had to show that the false allegations he made were on the issue of public interest and he is reasonably confident that the publication of the allegations is in the public interest.

Judge Richard Spareman KC noted that Raja did not submit any contemporary documents that were also stated by his sources, or the steps he had taken to obtain the ratification. He did not provide any explanation in his written evidence.

At one stage during the trial, Raja cited written records in which he described as diaries, but later made it clear that he had no material in the matter in this matter.

The judge said that he was not convinced that the allegations that the Raja had published came from his “sources” because (i) when observing the king gives oral evidence, he was unable to determine whether the evidence of Raja was reliable or that the case of false memory or exaggeration. And (ii) Raja did not present any contemporary record of any kind that supported his evidence.

Raja was unable to satisfy the judge that his source (languages) provided him with information to support the allegations made by Nasr. Therefore, its defense of the public interest failed.

Naseer’s barrister argued that the Raja is treating the information which has the general meaning of the general meaning of Nasir, though there are no such charges against the source of the king who depends on the king.

High Court Judge Richard Spareman KC cited three examples of this in a written decision: (1) Adil Raja claimed that a report seeking the reality of the murder of Irshad Sharif on December 2, 2022 had officially made that ISI was involved in the murder of Arshad Sharif. The judge found that it was not. There was no mention of ISI in the key results of this report and the report did not make it official that ISI was involved in the murder of Irshad Sharif. – The judge found that the tweet did not even cite Nasir, abandoning him for alleged purposes, misusing his position. And ()) Adil Raja relied on a tweet posted by Amnesty International on June 15, 2023, claiming the tweet that there were concerns over the disappearance of journalists. The judge found that the tweet did not even mention it.

In connection with the notoriety statements published by the Raja, the judge made several points. The judge said that Raja claimed that Naseer was interfering in the elections with “full control of the Lahore High Court”.

Raja’s star witness, Shahad Akbar, contradicts Raja’s words and explained that the Lahore High Court is not under inappropriate control of anyone and instead intended to ensure that the elections proceeded, though his orders were not implemented.

The judge found that there was no reasonable basis to believe that in the public interest, the statement had to publish the statement that Nasir met with Asif Ali Zardari about the manipulation of electoral manipulation, which Nisar strongly denied.

The Raja relied on the content that posted his notoriety statements, and the judge found that none of the Raja could be relied upon at the time of publication.

The judge wrote that no evidence was made by the Raja that he made any attempt to confirm the alleged meeting of Asif Ali Zardari with Nasir, for example, in detail how many calls were made and when.

“The fact that he has nothing to produce” and “a question is whether [Adil Raja’s] The ax may be an ax to grind against the claimed source (tongues) [Rashid Naseer]”And that” has no evidence, and definitely has no modern record, [Adil Raja] At that time the issue was considered or investigated. “

The judge noted that the three witnesses of Raja were clear and inspiring, but they emphasized that their evidence had zero material value or weight in this case and their arguments did not help the court believe that Nasser was involved in wrongdoing, as the Raja allegedly had done.

In fact, the judge found that when Shaheen was criticized by Nasir and made allegations against some reporting in the international press about ISI and the agency, the judge said that Shaheen Sahabi failed to support his claims with any relevant evidence and even if it did not agree.

The judge wrote: “Thus these ideas have no clear weight” and “Mr. Sehwai’s evidence does not help materially. [Adil Raja]”The judge found that Shaheen Sahai did not accuse Naseer of” corrupt methods “against Naseer.

Syed Akbar Hussain told the court that he did not know Nasr personally and had no knowledge of Raja’s allegations in publications.

The London High Court heard that Shahzad Akbar met Naseer in June 2022 and asked him to help the courts pressure to punish Sheshbash Sharif on a speedy basis, but Naseer refused to intervene.

Shahzad Akbar said that he met Nasir to end judicial interference through meeting with Nasr, but Naseer’s lawyer told the court that it was a lie, and that the meeting was left in the madness of Shah Zadar Akbar, in some cases, in some cases, a criminal or a bully.

The judge found that Shahad Akbar had presented his own opinion but could not confirm the correct way in which the incidents occurred or the specific sources of Raja’s information. Judge Shahzad was criticized for the point of view when he made the same mistake, which the judge said that the Raja’s case was affected. Shahzad Akbar believed that what was important was Raja’s political analysis, not whether the king had a suitable basis for making his allegations. The judge said, “It was a wrong point of view in these operations.”

The judge said that the claim has attracted a lot of public interest because of the Raja’s advice that in fact the claim was brought by ISI or was financied. Raja alleged that the claim brought by Naseer was a slip (strategic action against public participation) case, but Raja’s Barrister did not give any reference to the slip in his closing requests, and the judge noted that he was not sure that it was a financing of ISI.

The judge found that all the complaints made meant seriously and his hereditary trend of damaging reputation was equally big. He also found that the extent of the publication, in each example, was widely in the form of choice, shares and grapefruit effects, which he severely damaged Nasr’s reputation with further derogatory effects, and no attempt was made by the king to find a version of Nasser.

Nasser was represented by Barrister David Lemar of Dot Street Chambers and Stone White Salacers’ Sultana and Sadia Qureshi. Raja was represented by Barrister Simon Harding.