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

The tenth publication

The considerations that apply to the first to sixth and eighth and ninth publications are also applicable to the tenth publication. The Defendant’s pleaded case concerning his sources are that they were “within the ISI” (or possibly, as this is mentioned under the plea of truth, “within the ISI, military intelligence and the army”) and his pleaded case concerning verification is a repeat of his case on verification of the first publication.

The DWS states (among other things) that (as already mentioned in [11] above) “It was not intended to make defamatory allegations against the Claimant or to imply any direct involvement on his part in regime change or corrupt practices” and, further, that “The language used in the tweet may have been strong, but it was meant to convey a sense of frustration and disillusionment with perceived corruption and abuse of powers within certain sectors of the government and the military” and “The references to “both brigadiers” were general in nature and did not necessarily implicate the Claimant individually”.

It is true that the Claimant and the second brigadier were not named in the tenth publication, which was tweeted on 29 June 2022 at 16.42 UK time. However, they were each named in the ninth publication which was tweeted on 29 June 2022 at 16.38 UK time, a mere four minutes earlier. Further, both tweets were tweeted on the same account and formed part of the same thread. In these circumstances, the suggestion that the reference to “both brigadiers” in the tenth publication was “general” and did not necessarily implicate the Claimant is unsustainable. Indeed, to my mind it is clear that the reason why the Defendant felt able to refer to “both these brigadiers” without naming them and without being obscure was because he was writing a follow up to the ninth publication in which they had already been named, and he assumed both tweets would reach the same audience.

In addition, I consider that it is not credible to suggest that describing two people as “the left and right arm” of regime change does not imply direct involvement in regime change.

Similarly, in my judgment, it is not credible to suggest that stating that “[b]oth of them, while carrying out illegal actions … have become billionaires” does not imply any direct involvement on their part in corrupt practices. Shifting the debate onto this ground - i.e. whether any allegation of corruption was made (or intended) against the Claimant – distracts from the issue of whether the Defendant had any basis for believing that the Claimant had become a billionaire due to carrying out “illegal actions”. That is an extravagant allegation. The Defendant’s answers in cross-examination were expressed in very general terms (“I had sources. I’ve cross-checked. I believed the statement to be true. I shared it in the public interest.”), and he failed to persuade me he had any basis for it.

More generally, the DWS ends by saying “It is essential to recognise the broader context in which these publications were made, as they reflect ongoing discussions and debates about governance, transparency, and accountability in Pakistan.” That context is important, but it cuts both ways. While great value is, rightly, accorded to freedom of political speech, to paraphrase the words of Lord Nicholls: the more serious the subject matter, the more the public is misinformed if what is published is not true. Further, the fact that the general topic is important cannot justify harming the reputation of an individual without a proper basis.

The DWS also refers to a number of articles in relating to claims such as “The democratically elected government of Imran Khan was toppled through a ‘staged’ vote of no confidence, backed by the military chief of Army Staff and ISI” and “in Pakistan, the military is still running the show, over and above the constitution of the country”. These articles support a case for reporting on general issues of the type mentioned in the tenth publication, and for invoking the protection of s4 in relation to such reporting. They provide no such support for statements like those made in the tenth publication, which focus on the Claimant and which contain very serious allegations which are put forward as statements of fact and not as material for discussion or debate, let alone general discussion or debate.

For all these reasons, I consider that there is no s4 defence to the tenth publication.