On October 14, 2025, a London courtroom delivered a verdict that has reverberated across the UK’s political and social landscape. Fayaz Khan, an Afghan national and prolific TikTok user, was sentenced to five years in prison for making a chilling death threat against Reform UK leader and Member of Parliament for Clacton, Nigel Farage. The case, which unfolded under intense public scrutiny, spotlighted not only the dangers faced by public figures but also the complexities of migration, social media influence, and the criminal justice system.
The saga began in October 2024, when Khan—known online as “madapasa”—posted a video on TikTok in which he directly threatened Farage. In the video, Khan made a gun gesture with his hand, pointed to an AK-47 tattoo beneath his eye, and declared, “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.” According to BBC News, this menacing message, paired with Khan’s gestures, left little ambiguity about his intent.
The threat was a direct response to a YouTube video Farage had uploaded two days earlier, entitled “the journey of an illegal migrant.” In that video, Farage highlighted Khan’s presence among “young males of fighting age coming into our country about whom we know very little.” Prosecutor Peter Ratliff told the court that Khan’s reply was far from spontaneous, remarking, “This was very far from an off-the-cuff, instinctive reaction. This was something that involved significant planning.”
Khan’s online persona had already attracted considerable attention. His TikTok account, “madapasa,” boasted hundreds of thousands of views, and he had livestreamed his journey across the English Channel on a black inflatable boat with 65 other migrants, gathering a substantial online audience. As The Guardian reported, Khan’s social media savvy and the widespread dissemination of his videos were key elements in the prosecution’s argument that he intended to encourage others and amplify his message.
When British authorities apprehended Khan after his arrival in the UK, he gave his name as Fayaz Khan and his age as 26. However, Swedish authorities identified him as Fayaz Husseini, age 31, with a lengthy criminal record. Court records revealed that Khan had 17 previous convictions in Sweden, including for carrying a knife, threatening behaviour, vandalism, and drug and dishonesty offences. He had also been jailed in June 2019 for threatening a public servant and had an outstanding six-month sentence in Sweden for possession of a knife. An extradition request from Sweden was later withdrawn, as reported by The Evening Standard.
During the trial at Southwark Crown Court, Farage described the threat as “pretty chilling,” stating, “Given his proximity to guns and love of guns, I was genuinely worried.” He added, “The only reason we know about this guy is because somebody sent it to me on TikTok. It makes me wonder how many other madapasas are there now in this country?” Farage’s testimony underscored the growing risks that public figures face in the digital age, where threats can be broadcast instantly to vast audiences.
As the verdict was delivered, Khan erupted in the dock, shouting at Farage, “You want to fk my life because you want to be prime minister. He is lying. I want to go back to Afghanistan. I am not guilty. I am not here because I want to kill him. I want to see my family. You’re doing this to fk my life.” According to Sky News, Khan’s outburst also included an accusation that Farage was using him for political gain.
Khan’s defense barrister, Charles Royle, conveyed an apology on his client’s behalf, stating that Khan wished to apologize to Farage and his sister “for any offence and upset caused.” Royle argued that Khan’s online persona was more performance than reality, saying, “MadaPasa was a character and not a real-life gangster.” He added, “The truism of ‘all publicity is good publicity’ was in his mind, but clearly wrong.” The defense also highlighted Khan’s claim that his father had been an associate of former Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and that he worked for his father, putting him at risk from the Taliban—a factor cited in his asylum claim.
Nonetheless, Mrs Justice Steyn, presiding over the case, was unswayed by these arguments. She called Khan a “pseudo-gangster” and described his threats as “pretty chilling.” Steyn emphasized, “Your video was not more abuse, it was a threat to kill with a firearm and it was, as Mr Farage put it, ‘pretty chilling.’” She continued, “Being a Member of Parliament is a vitally important public duty. It is critical to a thriving and vibrant democracy that the public have access to MPs. It is vital that politicians are not deterred by threats.”
The judge also addressed the broader context of violence and intimidation against politicians in recent years, noting, “MPs are particularly vulnerable to threats. Several MPs have been the subject of attacks and threats in recent years, and two MPs have been murdered. When anyone makes a threat to kill an MP, it is an exceptionally serious crime. Your offending necessitates a substantial sentence of imprisonment.”
In addition to the five-year sentence for making threats to kill, Khan received an eight-month concurrent sentence for illegally entering the UK, having previously pleaded guilty to that offence. Nicholas Coates of the Crown Prosecution Service remarked, “Khan not only entered the UK illegally – but made sinister threats against a Member of Parliament in plain view of thousands of followers. Elected politicians must be able to carry out their jobs free from the fear of harm or abuse, and we will make sure that those who seek to intimidate them face the full force of the law.”
Despite the outcome, Farage voiced concerns about the length of Khan’s sentence, telling reporters, “I’m happy with the win,” but added he was “deeply, deeply concerned” that Khan could be released in as little as 18 months. Farage warned, “This violent criminal… will be in this country, living in a house of multiple occupancy or a hotel, free to walk the streets whilst his asylum claim is judged.”
The case of Fayaz Khan has sparked debate about the intersection of migration, online influence, and political safety. While the court’s decision was celebrated by some as a necessary stand against threats to democracy, others have questioned how to balance the rights of migrants and free speech with the imperative to protect public officials. For now, the verdict stands as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by online extremism and the challenges facing modern democracies in keeping their leaders—and their societies—safe.
