On October 14, 2025, Southwark Crown Court handed down a five-year prison sentence to Fayaz Khan, an Afghan national widely known on TikTok as 'madapasa,' for threatening to kill Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in a video posted to social media last October. The sentencing, which also included an eight-month concurrent term for illegal entry into the UK, marks a dramatic chapter in the ongoing debate over migration, criminality, and political safety in Britain.
Khan’s journey to the UK was anything but straightforward. According to multiple reports, including BBC and Daily Mail, Khan crossed the Channel by small boat after living in Sweden for nine years, where he accumulated a substantial criminal record. Swedish authorities, who knew him as Fayaz Husseini and believed him to be 31 years old, say his offences included knife possession, minor bodily harm, threatening behaviour, and vandalism. Upon arrival in England, Khan gave British police the name Fayaz Khan and claimed he was 26, a discrepancy the prosecution attributed to his desire to obscure his criminal past.
The case’s origins trace back to October 12, 2024, when Farage uploaded a YouTube video titled “the journey of an illegal migrant.” In the video, Farage highlighted Khan’s story as part of a broader discussion on “young males of fighting age coming into our country about whom we know very little.” Prosecutor Peter Ratliff told the court that Khan responded two days later with a TikTok video that was played for the jury. In it, Khan addressed Farage directly: “Englishman Nigel, don’t talk shit about me. You not know me. I come to England because I want to marry with your sister. You not know me. Don’t talk about me more. Delete the video. I’m coming to England. I’m going to pop, pop, pop.”
During the video, Khan made gun gestures with his hand, headbutted the camera, and pointed to an AK-47 tattoo on his left cheek. Ratliff explained to the jury that these actions were intended to emphasize the seriousness of the threat. Farage, who attended the sentencing with a team of security guards, later told police he was “potentially in fear for my life” due to the explicit nature of the threat, noting that Khan’s reference to “marrying” his sister was euphemistic and misogynistic.
Judge Mrs Justice Steyn underscored the gravity of the offense, stating, “Your video was not merely abuse, it was a threat to kill with a firearm. It was, as Mr Farage put it, pretty chilling.” She further contextualized the threat by referencing the murders of MPs Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, emphasizing, “Being a Member of Parliament is a vitally important public duty. It is critical to a thriving democracy that the general public have access to Members of Parliament and politicians are not deterred from Parliament by threats. Several MPs have been the subject of attacks and threats in recent years, and two Members of Parliament have been murdered. When anyone makes a threat to kill a Member of Parliament, it is an exceptionally serious crime and will be treated as such.”
Khan’s defense argued that the “pop, pop, pop” sound and associated gestures were his customary sign-off on TikTok and not intended as a genuine threat. His counsel, Charles Royle, told the court that Khan had made similar gestures in other videos unrelated to Farage, describing his social media persona as that of an “entertainer” seeking to “play a part” and make a living online. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Khan of making threats to kill, unconvinced by his explanation.
After the sentence was announced, Khan initially apologized to Farage but quickly shifted to an expletive-laden outburst, accusing the politician of exploiting the case for political gain. “You use me so that you can be Prime Minister,” Khan shouted, before expressing his desire to return to Afghanistan: “I am going to go back to Afghanistan, I want to see my family. I want to go back to my country. I am not here to kill you. The police are lying. You want to f*** my life, you want to put me in prison. Send me back to Afghanistan, I don't want to stay here.”
The question of Khan’s future in the UK remains unresolved. Home Office policy dictates that foreign offenders sentenced to at least 12 months in prison are automatically considered for deportation. Farage, speaking outside the courthouse, called for Khan’s swift removal: “He wants to be deported, he’d rather go back to Afghanistan. That’s what he wants to do and we should satisfy that as soon as we can.” Khan himself, during his courtroom outburst, appeared to welcome deportation, stating a clear wish to return to his homeland.
Khan’s background is complex. He lived in Sweden for nearly a decade, where he amassed a long list of convictions and left behind a three-year-old son. He claimed to have applied for asylum in Sweden, which was denied, leading him to attempt the journey to the UK. According to the court, he made ten unsuccessful attempts to enter Britain before finally arriving in October 2024, livestreaming his journey on social media. Khan told authorities that his father’s association with former Afghan president Hamid Karzai put him at risk from the Taliban, a claim that was part of his rationale for seeking asylum and using a false name. However, Judge Steyn dismissed this explanation, saying, “If that was the case, you wouldn’t have livestreamed your journey on social media. It is because you have a criminal record in Sweden.”
The episode has sparked debate across the political spectrum. Supporters of Farage and Reform UK have pointed to the case as evidence of the dangers posed by insufficient vetting of migrants and the risks to public figures. Others caution against using isolated incidents to generalize about asylum seekers or migrants as a whole, noting that the overwhelming majority do not commit crimes and are themselves fleeing violence or persecution. The case has also reignited discussions about the safety of politicians, especially in light of recent attacks on MPs, and the adequacy of current security measures.
As the dust settles, the case of Fayaz Khan stands as a stark reminder of the complex challenges facing the UK’s immigration system, the potential dangers posed by social media-fueled threats, and the ongoing imperative to balance public safety, justice, and compassion in an era of global migration and political volatility.
