In a case that has gripped both the political and legal spheres in the United Kingdom, Fayaz Khan, a 26-year-old Afghan national, is currently on trial at Southwark Crown Court, accused of posting a menacing TikTok video that appeared to threaten the life of Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party. The proceedings, which began in early October 2025, have cast a spotlight on the complex intersection of online speech, political discourse, and public safety in Britain.
According to BBC reporting, the controversy began in October 2024 when Khan, who had arrived in the UK on a small boat after documenting his journey from Sweden, allegedly posted a TikTok video that named Farage, made a gun gesture with his hand, and uttered the words, "pop, pop, pop." The video was widely circulated, with Khan’s TikTok account, operating under the username “madapasa,” amassing hundreds of thousands of views. Prosecutors described his online presence as having a "very large presence online," with content focused on his attempts to come to the UK by small boat.
The incident unfolded in the wake of a five-minute YouTube video posted by Farage on October 12, 2024. In that video, Farage showcased Khan’s journey and drew particular attention to a Kalashnikov gun tattoo on Khan’s face, describing the migrant as aggressive and questioning whether "this was the kind of man we wanted in the UK." The video also included footage of Khan with a firearm, stoking further controversy and debate about border policies and the nature of migration into Britain.
Just days after Farage’s YouTube post, Khan responded with a TikTok video that quickly became the centerpiece of the current trial. In the video, Khan demanded that Farage delete his YouTube video, declared his intention to marry Farage’s sister, and then made a gun gesture while saying, "pop, pop, pop," before headbutting his phone. The prosecution, as reported by The Telegraph, argued that Khan’s actions were "calculated and threatening," with prosecutor Peter Ratliff telling the jury that Khan’s gun gestures and reference to his AK47 face tattoo were meant to emphasize he was not joking. Jurors were also shown a screenshot of a subsequent TikTok post by Khan, captioned, "I mean what I say," superimposed over a GB News report about the alleged threat.
Farage, testifying at Southwark Crown Court, did not mince words about his reaction to 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," Farage told the court, according to BBC. He further described the video as "pretty chilling," adding, "Given his proximity to guns and love of guns, I was genuinely worried." Farage also addressed the reference to his sister, calling the comment "deeply misogynistic" and expressing concern that Khan "clearly treats women as mere objects and could be a threat to them on our streets."
The prosecution’s case centered on the argument that Khan intended for Farage to believe the threat was real. "By releasing his video to social media, the defendant plainly believed and intended that his threat would reach Nigel Farage," Ratliff told the jury. "And he plainly intended that Nigel Farage would fear that it would be carried out." The prosecution dismissed any political context as irrelevant, stating, "Whatever you think about Nigel Farage or his politics, whatever you think about migration or illegal migration specifically – all of that is just irrelevant. The only real issue in this case is whether the defendant intended that Nigel Farage would believe that he would carry out his threat."
Khan, for his part, has denied the charge of making threats to kill. In a police interview conducted on November 1, 2024, he told officers through an interpreter that he had attempted to come to the UK "10 times" and was in Dunkirk, France, when he recorded the video. "I come here because I want to live here. I want new life. I don’t come here because I want to kill Nigel Farage," Khan stated, as reported by The Telegraph. He insisted that his "pop, pop, pop" catchphrase was a recurring motif in his videos and not a specific threat. "It was never my intention to kill him or anything – this is my character, this is how I act in my videos. In every video I make those sounds, I say ‘pop, pop, pop’. It was just a video, it was never an intention to threaten him," Khan explained. He also told police he was high at the time and "did not know what I was saying when I posted that video."
Khan’s defense lawyer echoed these sentiments in court, characterizing the video as "a moment of anger, not a genuine intent to kill." The defense maintained that Khan’s gestures were "symbolic and exaggerated," not literal threats. Nonetheless, the prosecution countered that the threatening nature of the video, combined with Khan’s visible affinity for firearms and his aggressive online persona, left little room for ambiguity.
The case has reignited broader debates in Britain over online harassment, violent rhetoric against public figures, and the responsibilities of social media platforms. According to Khaama Press, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called for stronger protections for politicians in the wake of several high-profile attacks in recent years. Legal experts note that the trial underscores the ongoing challenge of balancing free expression with the need to curb credible threats made on digital platforms.
Farage, in his testimony, reflected on the changing nature of political discourse and the risks faced by public figures. "Normally videos on TikTok are produced by smuggling gangs as means of advertising their wares. It’s quite unusual for a person to be advertising their own journey," he said, referencing Khan’s documentation of his attempts to reach the UK. Farage added, "What drew my attention – we all have different tastes but I thought the face tattoo was particularly aggressive, the presence of guns in previous posts and a general demeanour."
As the trial continues, the court is expected to deliver its verdict later in October 2025. The outcome is being closely watched, not just for its implications for Farage and Khan, but for what it may signal about the boundaries of digital speech, the safety of public figures, and the state of political accountability in the UK. While the legal process unfolds, the story serves as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences that can arise from the volatile mix of politics, social media, and personal grievance.