Mir Raza case: Business associates, witnesses testify before judicial commission

KARACHI: A judicial commission investigating the death of businessman Mir Raza Ali on Tuesday recorded the statements of several business associates and witnesses, with proceedings focusing on his investments, business dealings and discrepancies between witnesses’ accounts and statements recorded by police.

The one-member commission, headed by Sindh High Court Justice Omar Sial, recorded the statements of businessman Abid Farooq, his brother Asif, businessman Faizur Rehman and business associate Sarim bin Tahir, who appeared through video link from Malaysia.

Abid told the commission that Mir Raza had offered him a partnership in his restaurant business in 2020, after which he invested Rs7 million in 2024 and Rs7.5 million in 2025.

He said he had also separately invested up to Rs10 million in a vehicle-coating business associated with Mir Raza’s family.

Abid said there was no formal written agreement for the investments, but records of the transactions and discussions were available on WhatsApp.

According to his testimony, he initially received payments from the business, but the payments became delayed and stopped in April 2026.

When asked whether Mir Raza had cited financial problems, Abid said Raza had told him that he was expanding the restaurant business and that payments would therefore take time.

Abid said he continued meeting Mir Raza after April and noticed no significant change in his behaviour. He also said he had not heard of Raza seeking Rs30 million from anyone and did not believe that Raza was being blackmailed.

His brother Asif, who also had business dealings with Mir Raza, confirmed that they had maintained good relations with him and remained in contact. The commission completed the statements of both brothers.

Sarim’s video-link testimony

Sarim bin Tahir, who works in the software sector, told the commission that Mir Raza had contacted him and they later met at a restaurant branch in Bahadurabad.

Sarim said Raza had discussed a cloud-kitchen business and investment opportunities during their meeting and later asked him whether he worked in cryptocurrency.

When Sarim said he did not, Raza told him that he had other businesses besides his food ventures, including a vehicle-related business.

Sarim said he advised Raza to first improve his business structure, register the business properly and maintain better financial statements. He said they ultimately agreed not to enter into a business partnership.

He told the commission that he had met Raza in December and January and that they had discussed a financial matter involving around Rs3.0-3.5 million.

Sarim said Raza subsequently contacted him about investment and, while he was at his office with his staff, sent a message referring to Rs30 million.

He said Raza later deleted the message himself.

Sarim told the commission that he had initially provided investigators with 25 screenshots of his conversations with Raza, including the relevant exchanges.

The commission noted that the complete chat record had not been placed before it and directed its focal person to obtain the material.

Asked how he interpreted Raza’s request for millions of rupees as an investment-related message rather than a request for help over a financial problem, Sarim said Raza had been discussing his businesses with him and appeared to be seeking money urgently.

Sarim said he had considered that Raza could have suffered losses in cryptocurrency or been seeking repayment of a loan. He said he had the impression that Raza might have contacted him as a “last hope” because he was facing difficulties.

Sarim also told the commission that police had contacted him after obtaining his details through call-data records and that his first statement was later recorded by another investigation team.

When the commission questioned how part of his police statement reached the media, Sarim said he did not know and suggested that former Ferozabad SHO Adeel Afzal might have provided it.

Commission questions police account

The commission also questioned witnesses about statements attributed to them by police, with proceedings highlighting differences between their accounts before the commission and the versions recorded during the investigation.

Faizur Rehman, who runs three coffee shops and a restaurant, told the commission that Mir Raza had contacted him in June 2025 seeking Rs200,000 for a Foodpanda-related payment. He said he provided the money and Raza later returned it.

Rehman said Raza subsequently sought Rs1 million from him but he did not provide the money.

He said he was abroad when Raza died and returned to Pakistan on Aug 25, after which police called him to record a statement.

The commission asked him about a police statement attributed to him concerning people from whom Raza allegedly sought money. Rehman denied telling police that Raza had sought money from the son of a property developer.

He said the actual matter concerned a request by Raza for the contact number of Ahsan, the son of property developer Saleem Zaki, for marketing purposes. Rehman said the two men did not know each other personally.

Rehman also confirmed that Raza had sought Rs1 million from his nephew, describing it as a family matter.

He denied discussing cryptocurrency with Raza, although he said police had asked him about it.

The commission questioned why police had summoned him when he had no direct involvement in the matter and expressed concern over the way his statement had been handled.

The proceedings also touched on a WhatsApp conversation between Rehman and Ali Shaaz on Aug 6. The commission questioned whether parts of the police narrative had been constructed without being put to the witnesses.

Earlier commission concerns

The latest proceedings come amid growing scrutiny of the police investigation. The commission has previously questioned the withholding or delayed production of records and discrepancies between police statements and witnesses’ accounts.

The commission had also criticised the first investigation officer, Inspector Shabbir Laghari, for failing to carry out key investigative procedures and noted that several tasks, including collection of CCTV footage and evidence, were performed by other officers.

On Monday, the commission rejected a request by medico-legal officer Dr Osama Sheikh to record a further statement, saying it had sufficient material to determine the facts and possible negligence. The commission had earlier examined controversy surrounding the first post-mortem, while a second examination after exhumation concluded that Mir Raza had been shot from the back and ruled out suicide.

The commission is expected to continue examining witnesses and police officials as it investigates the circumstances surrounding Mir Raza’s death and possible negligence in the handling of the case.