At Southwark Crown Court in London this week, the trial of Fayaz Khan—a 26-year-old Afghan national accused of threatening to kill Reform UK leader Nigel Farage—has gripped the public and reignited debates around immigration, online threats, and the perils of political life in Britain.
Nigel Farage, the prominent MP for Clacton and a figure never far from controversy, took the witness stand on October 7, 2025, to describe his reaction to what prosecutors allege was a chilling death threat made against him on social media. According to BBC News, the incident began last October when Khan, who had arrived in the UK on a small boat after several years in Sweden, posted a video on TikTok. In the video, he named Farage, made a gun gesture with his hand, and uttered the words, "pop, pop, pop."
Farage told the court he was "appalled" and "genuinely, genuinely worried" by the video. "In high profile politics a lot of nasty stuff gets said—some in the last few weeks. What you don't get is an individual saying they're coming for you. That is not something I'm used to seeing and I was genuinely, genuinely worried," he said, as reported by Reuters and BBC News.
The court heard that Khan, who has no fixed abode in the UK, had documented his journey from Sweden to Britain in a series of social media posts. Farage, known for his outspoken views on immigration, had taken particular interest in Khan's case. On October 12, 2024, Farage posted a five-minute YouTube video highlighting Khan's journey. In this clip, Farage drew attention to a distinctive Kalashnikov gun tattoo on Khan's left cheek, described him as aggressive, and questioned publicly, "was this the kind of man we wanted in the UK?"
According to The Daily Mail, Farage explained his motivation for making the video: "He was so prolific on TikTok, I said it was an undocumented young male of fighting age coming to Britain and did we want him? We all have different tastes, but I thought that possession of a gun tattoo was particularly aggressive. I thought here was a pretty bad example of someone making their way to the UK."
Not long after Farage's YouTube post, Khan responded with a video of his own. In it, he demanded Farage delete his video, declared he wanted to marry Farage's sister, and then, making a gun gesture, repeated "pop, pop, pop" before headbutting his phone. The prosecution alleges this sequence amounted to a direct and credible threat to Farage's life.
Farage recounted to the jury, "I thought the response was pretty chilling. It was everywhere, my phone was going ping ping ping because I obviously highlighted the case. I believe this man to be a gangster with a violent history. I was very worried indeed… I interpreted what he said that he was going to shoot me." He further stated, "Given his proximity and love of guns, I was genuinely, genuinely worried. What he says is he is coming to England and he's going to shoot me. I understood that very clearly indeed." (The Daily Mail)
The defense, led by Charles Royle, challenged Farage's characterization of Khan, suggesting that Farage's decision to spotlight Khan's case "suits your narrative" on immigration. Farage rejected this, maintaining that his concerns were genuine and rooted in the content and tone of Khan's videos.
For his part, Khan denies the charge of making threats to kill. He told the court, via a Dari interpreter, that the phrase "pop pop pop" was not a reference to guns and that he was not making a gun gesture. Khan also claimed he did not know who Farage was at the time of the posts and believed the video Farage made about him was fake. The court heard that Khan had some command of English, but required interpretation throughout the proceedings.
As Bloomberg noted, Farage described the "sheer aggression" in Khan's videos as making him "genuinely worried." The trial has also drawn attention to the broader context of threats faced by public figures, especially those who take controversial stances on divisive issues such as immigration. Farage himself acknowledged that abuse is "part of public life" for politicians, saying, "You have to be big enough and ugly enough to go on. Abuse is part of public life." Yet he stressed that Khan's direct threat crossed a line: "What you don't see is an individual on social media saying they are coming for you directly and secondly the means by which they are going to do it."
During the trial, the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, reminded jurors of the seriousness of their responsibilities, warning them not to research the case or use AI services such as ChatGPT to inform their deliberations. She emphasized that Farage was a "well-known politician," a fact likely to be familiar to most jurors.
Khan, known online as Madapasa, arrived in the UK on October 31, 2024, after spending six years in Sweden, Germany, and France. His online persona and distinctive tattoo quickly drew the attention of Farage, who has long campaigned for stricter immigration controls. The case has prompted renewed debate in the UK about the challenges of policing online threats and the responsibilities of public figures when highlighting individual cases.
While the prosecution argues that Khan's video was a serious and credible threat, the defense insists that the context and meaning have been misinterpreted. Mr Royle, for the defense, pointedly remarked, "nobody has come to harm from a tattoo." Farage shot back, "Do they have that tattoo at your local golf club? I doubt it. People have their own tastes, but that is pretty exceptional." Farage also suggested that the reference to marrying his sister was a euphemism, hinting at what he described as a "misogynistic attitude to women" in Khan's other videos.
The trial, expected to last until October 10, 2025, continues to draw public and media attention. As of this writing, Khan remains in custody and maintains his innocence. The proceedings have become a flashpoint in the ongoing national conversation about migration, security, and the boundaries of free speech on social media platforms.
As the court weighs the evidence, the case stands as a stark reminder of how quickly online rhetoric can escalate—and how the intersection of politics, migration, and digital media can spark controversy, fear, and, at times, grave concern for personal safety.
