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.

Commission questions ASP Nida

The judicial commission questioned Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Nida over her involvement in the investigation, her contacts with a key witness and the forwarding of a message to the investigation team.

During the proceedings, Nida told the commission that she was posted in Bahadurabad and her office was at Ferozabad police station. She said the head of the first investigation team, Samiullah Soomro, had assigned her the task of questioning women linked to the case.

The commission questioned why she had begun working on the case when her name was not included in either the first or second investigation teams.

Nida said the case did not fall within her jurisdiction but that senior police officials in Punjab had contacted her, saying they were acquainted with Mir Raza.

The commission questioned her involvement with Ali Shaz, noting that he was not a woman and asking why he had approached her if she had not been formally assigned to the case.

Nida said Shaz had told her that he had met Mir Raza three times and had last met him in December. She said she subsequently forwarded his message to the investigation team and told them that she had no involvement in the case.

She also denied providing a voice note to the media.

When asked whether Shaz had contacted her after the voice note became public and requested that his name be removed from it, Nida denied having any such contact.

She acknowledged that she had not recorded Shaz’s statement.

The commission questioned whether forwarding the message had contributed to the emergence of disputed aspects of the case and criticised Nida for what it described as interference in an investigation outside her assigned responsibility.

Nida said she considered it her responsibility to listen to anyone who approached her.

The commission responded that while listening to a person might be part of her responsibility, interfering in an investigation was not.

The commission also said it had access to Nida’s call-data record and questioned her about the timing and frequency of her contacts with Shaz.

Questions over investigation direction

The commission asked Nida whether she believed Mir Raza had died by suicide or had been murdered.

Nida said she could not determine that because the case was still under investigation.

Asked whether the first investigation team headed by Samiullah Soomro was working on the case as a suicide or murder, she said, to her knowledge, the team had not reached a conclusion.

Nida also confirmed that she had met Mir Raza’s fiancée on Aug 3 or 4, accompanied by police officer Arshad Afridi.

She said she had been taken along because a woman’s statement was being recorded and she could assist if any issue arose that required the involvement of a female police officer.

Nida said Soomro had provided her with the contact numbers of Sheeza, Maryam and Amberin, and she subsequently contacted Mir Raza’s fiancée. She said one of the numbers provided to her turned out to belong to Mir Raza’s mother.

Nida said she told his mother to contact her if she wished to speak.

The commission also questioned Nida about her presence during interactions involving the police surgeon and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA).

The proceedings included questions about whether she had been asked to monitor those proceedings and obtain information related to Mir Raza.

Dispute over witness statements

The commission also referred to the statement of witness Faizur Rehman, who had earlier told the commission that Nida had asked Ali Shaz three questions concerning Mir Raza, including whether he had Baloch friends and whether he had discussed cryptocurrency.

Nida said she had no knowledge of such a statement.

The commission questioned her further about what it described as a “Lahore connection” emerging from the proceedings.

Nida denied attempting to damage evidence or steer the investigation in any particular direction.

Commission seeks extension

During the hearing, the commission decided to seek an extension of its proceedings until Oct 15.

The commission’s head wrote to the chief justice of the Sindh High Court and the provincial home department seeking an extension. The commission’s focal person confirmed that the letter had been received.

Counsel for Mir Raza’s family told the commission that the new investigation team was reportedly seeking to constitute a new medical board.

“We have asked the investigation team about it but have received no response,” the counsel said.

The commission questioned the purpose of forming another medical board while its own proceedings were continuing.

The commission also noted that the Sindh government had removed an official who had been taking directions from the commission, raising further questions about the handling of the inquiry.

Judicial commission seeks extension

The head of the judicial commission investigating the death of Mir Raza Ali has written to the Sindh High Court chief justice and the provincial home department seeking an extension of the commission’s proceedings until Oct 15.

The commission’s focal person confirmed that the letter had been received.

The commission wants the proceedings to continue until October 15, the focal person said.

During the hearing, counsel for Mir Raza’s family said they had received information that the new investigation team was planning to constitute another medical board.

“We have asked the investigation team about it but have received no response,” the counsel said.

“If they are doing this, then what is the purpose of this commission?” Justice Omar Sial, who heads the commission, asked.

The commission also noted that the Sindh government had removed the director general who had been taking directions from it, saying the development had raised questions.

The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.

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.