A High Court judge in the United Kingdom has thrown out the allegations of PTI activists Shayan Ali and Adil Raja, and ordered the latter to pay £10,000 to the retired brigadier, an appellant in the case.
Regardless of what Mahtab Anwar Aziz, counsel for Adil Raja, contended before the court, the judge also dismissed his application for a stay, for security of costs etc while granting stay of the defamation case moved by a retired Pakistani brigadier against Adil Raja.
According to media reports on Tuesday, both Shayan Ali and Adil Raja tried to mislead the court and their lawyer Mahtab Aziz failed to convince the judge who noted that he had no such evidence before him and he was not convinced by ‘the wild claims made as a last ditch effort’ to scuttle the proceedings.
Both Adil Raja and Shayan Ali were jointly represented by Central Law Chambers (where Mahtab Anwar Aziz works as a solicitor) which is owned by Ahmad Jawad, who is from Mandi Bahauddin’s Gondal family. Mahtab Anwar Aziz had revealed to the UK’s High Court that PTI’s UK leading activist Shayan Ali suffered from serious mental health issues but their joint effort to malign the national institutions of Pakistan failed badly at the English court. He further contended that Shayan Ali was vulnerable and suffering from mental health issues.
Mahtab Anwar Aziz tried to argue that the defamation cases brought by the retired officer against Adil Raja and a case by Marriyum Aurangzeb against Shayan Ali lacked merit and were Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP) and should not be allowed to continue or be halted for a few months.
The counsel further made completely false and ludicrous allegations of terrorism, corruption, murder, kidnappings, torture, rigging, repression and censorship against Pakistan’s security institutions before the English Court but failed to back up his claims with evidence.
He told the court that the solicitors, at the law firm that represented the retired officer, were prolonging the case with Shayan Ali as it “should have settled at an early stage to avoid undue stress and financial loss to Mr Ali” who he said was “a vulnerable young teenager, who has suffered mental health issues due to the prolonged litigation designed to financially drain Ali’s family who are supporting him as he is a full-time student.”
Aziz tried to stop the proceedings of the case and made several false allegations against the Pakistani security institutions, hoping the English Judge would be swayed by the allegations that were often highlighted in the Indian media. The counsel stressed that it was neither in the interest of, nor professionally advisable for any solicitor of England and Wales to be taking up a case on behalf of the retired officer of Pakistani security institution.
He said it was “unconscionable” for any solicitor to act for the retired brigadier and Marriyum Aurangzeb or any other officer but he showed no proof to back up his false claims. Adil Raja and Shayan Ali’s lawyer further alleged that the Election Commission of Pakistan stopped February 8 election results to conduct rigging.
The court rejected these allegations against state institutions for lack of evidence. The lawyer alleged that the government in Pakistan was behind these cases and the trial should be stayed but the court rejected these arguments as they lacked merit and credibility. Mahtab Anwar Aziz told the court that Shayan Ali, who regularly protested in London against the PML-N, was exercising his freedom of speech.
He produced before the court a newspaper article in a pro-Indian publication published in February 2024 in which false and baseless accusations were levelled against the Pakistan security institutions but the court rejected these arguments. Shayan Ali and Adil Raja’s counsel tried to falsely link Arshad Sharif’s murder with the Pakistani authorities but the court did not entertain his arguments and rejected them due to absolute lack of proofs.
It is worth noting that the lawyer of youtuber also did not respond to the questions sent by various journalists to seek his point of view with regard to the proceedings.
