QB-2022-002648 - [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB)

According to paragraph 1 of the Amended Particulars of Claim (amended on 4 April 2024 to take account of the determination of the preliminary issues on meaning), and in addition to the facts summarised in [2] above, the Claimant “joined the Pakistan armed forces in 1989 and has risen through the ranks of the Army through hard work and dedication” and “is a professional soldier who has taken an oath to stay loyal to the Constitution of Pakistan and not to get involved in political, immoral or corrupt practices”. Paragraph 3 of the Re-Amended Defence admits all these matters, save that (i) it is pointed out that the Claimant is now retired (which is not in dispute), and (ii) it is asserted that the Claimant’s primary loyalty is to the ISI and Pakistan’s military establishment and not to the Constitution.

Paragraph 2 of the Amended Particulars of Claim pleads (in sum) that the Claimant has received multiple medals and commendations for his service, that he has worked closely with anti-terror forces from the UK, the USA and the European Union, that he enjoys an unblemished reputation, that he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and appointed to lead intelligence operations in Punjab on merit, and that he has received death threats as a result of his role in countering terrorism both as a frontline army commander and as a senior intelligence officer leading high profile counter-terrorism operations across Pakistan. Paragraph 3 of the Re-Amended Defence puts the Claimant to proof of these matters. However, they were supported by the Claimant’s evidence and were not challenged by Mr Harding. In addition, on the basis of concerns about his safety, arrangements were directed by another Judge of the Media and Communications List which enabled the Claimant to access the Court and to wait at Court without public exposure. It is therefore clear that those concerns appeared sufficiently credible to that Judge to warrant those unusual steps.

The Defendant’s evidence before me is that, in addition to the facts summarised in [2] above, he is a third generation Pakistan Army officer, who served honourably as a fighting arm officer for almost 21 years, had experience of serving in active operations, and was wounded during the war against terror in 2010. In addition, during his time in the Pakistan Army, he collaborated with (among others) the ISI, witnessed the working of the Pakistan intelligence agencies first hand as the officiating wing commander of the Khyber Rifles, and gained “a deep insight into the workings of the military”. Furthermore, after his retirement he set up a business with the Defence Housing Authority (“the military estate agent”) and was appointed as spokesperson for the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen Society (“an ISI funded organisation”). Through these roles he had regular meetings with (among others) the Director Generals of the ISI and the Inter-Services Public Relations (“ISPR”), was at the heart of the Pakistan military’s “information operations and narrative building efforts”, regularly visited the headquarters of the ISI internal wing and the ISPR, gained “deep insight into the workings of the military and intelligence establishment of Pakistan, which practically rule the country from behind the scenes”, and “made deep rooted connection in the ISI, ISPR and General Headquarters”. The Defendant further states that he was aware of “the Claimant’s activities as the Sector Commander Punjab of the ISI’s internal wing” and of “the business and political relations” of the Claimant and his provincial counterparts.

However, it is to be noted that the Defendant (i) does not link this claimed knowledge to the allegations made against the Claimant that are complained of in these proceedings, and (ii) nowhere asserts that he has any personal knowledge of the truth of those allegations.

The Defendant states that he supported Imran Khan since childhood, but when he spoke out against the “regime change operation” against Imran Khan in 2022 he was persecuted. His house was raided twice by the ISI, his mother was abducted by the ISI, his properties were seized as a result of “fictitious cases” registered against him by the ISI, and access to his bank accounts was denied - according to what he was told “on the pressure of the ISI”.

The Defendant accordingly had to flee Pakistan, and join his wife and children in the UK. Here, he has continued to work as an independent journalist. However, according to his evidence, the persecution has not abated: (i) he has faced “multiple assassination threats” from “the Pakistani military and security establishment”, (ii) a “fictitious terrorism case” was registered against him by the Pakistani government, (iii) although this case was dropped following lengthy investigation by the British police, in Pakistan it was used (in his absence) as the basis to court-martial him and to sentence him to 14 years’ imprisonment; and (iv) his passport and those of his children and mother have been blocked by “the Pakistani state”. The Defendant’s evidence that his safety would be at risk if he attended the trial was regarded as sufficiently credible by another Judge of the Media and Communications List to grant the Defendant permission to give evidence remotely at trial.

The Defendant further states that (i) he is one of the very few voices of dissent against political manipulation by (among others) the ISI, (ii) he maintains “a credible network of sources within the ISI and the military, including but not limited to the political and bureaucratic circles of Pakistan”, (iii) the “veracity of my information and credibility deeply hurts the officials of the authoritarian state of Pakistan”, and (iv) “ISI officials have a notorious reputation globally, because of gross human rights violations in Pakistan, and facilitating terrorism abroad. I have not stated anything out of the ordinary or something which is not already acknowledged globally about the ISI and its officials”. These matters are relevant to, and of importance for, his defence under s4 of the Defamation Act 2013.