Mir Raza case: commission grills health secretary, SSP over medical board and investigation

KARACHI: The judicial commission probing the murder of Mir Raza on Thursday grilled Sindh Health Secretary Tahir Sangi and SSP Samiullah Soomro over the replacement of a medical board and alleged shortcomings in the investigation into the death of young businessman.

The judicial commission head Justice Omar Sial questioned the officials over their decisions and conduct during the hearing.

The commission conducted its 11th hearing in Karachi, with Sangi appearing first as a witness.

At the outset, the commission asked the health secretary about his professional background and said his name had been mentioned by two witnesses, prompting the commission to summon him.

Sangi told the commission that he had worked in various departments in Punjab and Sindh.

The commission asked whether Dr Osama Sheikh worked under him, to which Sangi replied in the affirmative.

Justice Omar Sial remarked that Dr Osama had been repeatedly making people controversial and questioned why the health secretary had not sought an explanation from him.

“You should ask him what he has been doing. This behaviour is not appropriate,” the commission head remarked.

Health secretary questioned over medical board

The commission questioned Sangi about the legal basis under which a medical board is constituted.

When Sangi said medical boards were formed when ordered by a court, Justice Sial expressed displeasure and asked whether the health secretary was trying to shift responsibility onto the court.

“We can say that you do not know the law,” the commission head remarked.

Sangi then told the commission that he had received a letter stating that a judicial magistrate had directed that the medical board be changed.

Justice Sial asked him to produce the letter, which Sangi subsequently submitted to the commission.

According to Sangi, the letter stated that the board constituted by the police surgeon should include senior pathologists and forensic experts.

The commission pointed out that the letter also required the board to be constituted under the supervision of the police surgeon and asked whether Sangi had overlooked that point.

“You realise what you have done?” Justice Sial asked.

Sangi said he had been informed that the director general health and police surgeon dealt with the matter. He added that he had suggested including senior doctors so that there would be no question about only “preferred” people being included on the board.

The commission then asked whether Sangi was aware that a new medical board had subsequently been constituted overnight.

“I neither opposed it nor supported it,” Sangi replied.

Justice Sial pressed him for a direct answer and asked whether he knew about the formation of the new board.

“Yes, it was in my knowledge and I was on board,” Sangi said.

The commission head then remarked that this was why bureaucrats were summoned to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other forums to answer questions.

Justice Sial questioned why doctors from Karachi had been removed from the board and doctors from Hyderabad included instead.

“Were you not surprised? Did you not ask any questions?” the commission asked.

The commission also pointed out that the law required doctors from nearby areas to be included in a medical board.

Sangi replied that he did not know any of the Hyderabad doctors who had been included in the new board.

Justice Sial questioned whether including doctors from Hyderabad made the case and the medical board itself suspicious.

The commission head then remarked that Special Secretary Health and Sangi were responsible for the change in the medical board and asked the health secretary to explain why it had been done and whether there had been any pressure on him.

Sangi said the matter was being discussed in the media and the family had also not been satisfied with the earlier board, prompting the authorities to replace it.

The commission asked him to explain why the board had been changed and whether he had been under pressure.

When asked whether he normally worked until 11pm, Sangi said this happened occasionally in important matters.

Justice Sial then questioned how the inclusion of a doctor with only two or three years of experience could ensure a credible report when another member was a senior doctor.

The commission repeatedly asked Sangi to provide an example of such a procedure having been followed previously.

Sangi eventually said he was sorry and asked that his statement be included in the record.

SSP questioned over investigation

The commission then recorded the statement of SSP Samiullah Soomro, who told the hearing that the basic responsibility of a sub-inspector investigation officer was to investigate criminal cases.

The commission asked who was involved in the investigation along with him. Soomro said Zubair Nazir Sheikh and others were working with him, while investigation officers Shabbir Laghari and Arshad Javed were also involved.

He confirmed that Usman Saduzai had been in Azad Jammu and Kashmir from Augusdt 1 to Aug 9.

The commission asked whether it was normal for several officers to be involved in such cases, and Soomro replied in the affirmative.

Family statements not recorded

Justice Sial questioned why statements from Mir Raza’s family had not been recorded.

Soomro said that on Monday he had asked Zubair Nazir Sheikh to contact Mir Raza’s father, but the father refused to meet them.

He said he subsequently met the family on August 3.

The commission pressed him on why the family’s statements had not been formally recorded.

When asked whether he had questioned the investigation team about the failure to record their statements, Soomro replied that he had not.

The commission then asked how he had concluded that the death was a suicide if the family’s statements had not been recorded.

Soomro said Mir Raza’s father had declined to provide details when he spoke to him.

Justice Sial also questioned why Soomro had spoken to the media and described the incident as suicide while the investigation was still at an early stage.

Soomro said he had repeatedly tried to avoid speaking to the media, but after the family did not cooperate, he eventually spoke to Dawn News.

The commission questioned whether he did not think the investigation was still in its initial stages when he made such statements.

Soomro replied that he had been asked questions and had said it “could be” suicide, rather than declaring that it was suicide.

He said statements of Haitham, Ahmed and Raziq were recorded on Aug 3 and the crime scene was also visited.

Commission questions limited CCTV collection

The commission then questioned Soomro about the collection of CCTV footage.

Justice Sial asked how many cameras were located on the routes leading towards Karachi University and whether the investigation team had identified all possible access points.

Soomro said CCTV footage had been obtained from the area where the body was found, including footage from outside a marriage hall, but he could not recall the exact name of the location.

The commission questioned why the investigation team had not collected footage from other relevant locations.

Justice Sial pointed out that there were around 52 cameras but the investigators had obtained footage from only one.

The commission asked why, as the head of the investigation, Soomro had not ensured that footage from other cameras was collected.

“You were the head. Why did you put the responsibility on someone else? This is your mistake. Accept it,” the commission remarked.

The commission directed Soomro to provide CCTV footage from around 30 cameras along with the relevant memos and seizure documents.

At one point, the commission warned the SSP against giving evasive answers.

“You are an SSP; you can even go home from here without a pension. Your career is at stake,” Justice Sial remarked.

Mir Raza’s mobile phone under scrutiny

The commission also questioned Soomro about CCTV footage showing Mir Raza throwing his mobile phone.

Justice Sial asked whether someone subsequently picked up the phone and why investigators had not pursued that lead.

Soomro said he had asked the investigation officer, who told him that he had not seen the footage.

The commission asked whether Soomro knew of a person named Sajjad who allegedly picked up the phone.

Soomro said he had interviewed a BRT employee but had not recorded his statement.

The commission asked whether the investigation officer had recorded Sajjad’s statement. Soomro said he was not aware of such a statement.

The commission further questioned claims that Sajjad had found the phone in a drain and that this information had subsequently been shared with the media.

Soomro said there were many rumours circulating in the media at the time.

Justice Sial questioned why the police had not issued a statement clarifying the facts if media reports were inaccurate.

The commission also asked whether Soomro had recorded the statement of Faisal Rahim. He replied that he had not and said he believed the person might have worked under the SSP East.

Mobile phone sent to CTD

Soomro told the commission that Mir Raza’s mobile phone had been sent to the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD).

Justice Sial asked whether he had evidence proving that the phone had actually been transferred to the CTD.

Soomro said the police had statements from the people who sent and received the phone.

The commission also questioned whether police officials had attempted to unlock the phone using a password.

Soomro said they had not done so and that the CTD had handled the matter.

The commission expressed strong displeasure over the handling of the phone and questioned Soomro about the apparent lack of control over the investigation.

Smartwatch and pistol cover

Justice Sial also questioned Soomro about a smartwatch reportedly mentioned by Adil Afzal.

Soomro said he had neither seen nor recovered the smartwatch.

The commission asked why no action had been taken against subordinate officers over what it described as negligence and carelessness.

Justice Sial sharply criticised the investigation and questioned why Soomro and investigation officer Shabbir Laghari had not ensured that relevant evidence was properly secured and examined.

The commission also asked about a pistol cover recovered on July 31.

Soomro confirmed that the cover had been recovered and said it had been found hanging at another location.

Justice Sial questioned why this had not prompted investigators to determine who had placed it there and who might have seen it.

The commission expressed serious reservations about the quality of the investigation.

Crime scene allegedly damaged

Soomro told the commission that on Aug 6 they received information about a fire at the location where the body had been found and investigated the incident.

Justice Sial referred to the destruction of crime scenes in previous high-profile cases and questioned how the Mir Raza crime scene had also been allowed to be damaged.

The commission head told Soomro that the investigation had effectively compromised the entire case and said the SSP himself appeared to be responsible for the failures.

When asked who ordered the location to be burned, Soomro said he did not know and had not issued any such order.

The commission pressed him to name the person who had ordered it, but Soomro said he did not know.

Justice Sial then questioned whether Soomro had realised how the investigation officers had been appointed and how the investigation was being conducted despite the facts and evidence available to them.

The commission noted that investigation officer Shabbir Laghari had stated that only 10 of 33 witnesses had been interviewed.

Justice Sial expressed concern over the consequences of such investigative practices, saying ordinary people could suffer if police investigations were conducted in this manner.

The commission head further remarked that the failures appeared deliberate and that Soomro seemed to be under pressure.

The hearing again began after a 15-minute break.

Mir Raza commission questions SSP over gaps in police investigation

Sindh police SSP Samiullah Soomro faced sustained questioning by the Mir Raza Judicial Commission on Thursday over alleged gaps and shortcomings in the investigation into the case, particularly the failure to record key family and witness statements and obtain relevant CCTV footage.

During his statement, Soomro said the basic responsibility of a station investigation officer (SIO) was to investigate criminal cases and identified Zubair Nazir Sheikh, Shabbir Laghari and Arshad Javed as members of the investigation team. He said Usman Saduzai was in Azad Jammu and Kashmir from Aug 1 to 9.

The commission questioned Soomro about why statements of Mir Raza’s family members had not been recorded. He said he had asked Zubair Nazir Sheikh on Aug 2 to contact Mir Raza’s father, but the father refused to meet him.

Soomro said he subsequently met the family on Aug 3 after the father declined to provide details.

The commission repeatedly asked why formal statements had not been recorded and whether Soomro had questioned members of the investigation team about the omission. He replied that he had not.

The commission also questioned how police concluded that Mir Raza’s death was a suicide without recording the family’s statements.

Soomro said the father had declined to provide details when he spoke to him.

Asked why he had spoken to the media about suicide while the investigation was still at an early stage, Soomro said he had repeatedly tried to stop media coverage but eventually spoke to Dawn News because the family was not cooperating.

He clarified that he had told the media the death could be a suicide and had not stated definitively that it was one.

Soomro said statements of Haitham, Ahmed and Raziq were recorded on Aug 3 and the crime scene was visited. When the commission asked why their statements were not recorded again, he said that was the responsibility of the investigation officer.

The SSP also acknowledged that he was not satisfied with the performance of investigation officer Shabbir Laghari but allowed him to continue handling the case.

CCTV footage questioned

A major part of the questioning centred on CCTV footage. The commission asked Soomro how many locations and cameras should have been examined along the routes leading towards Karachi University.

Soomro said police had obtained footage from outside a marriage hall near the place where Mir Raza’s body was found, but he could not recall the name of the location.

The commission questioned why police had obtained footage from only one camera despite the presence of 52 cameras in the area.

The commission told Soomro to accept responsibility for the lapse and directed that footage from around 30 cameras be provided to it along with the relevant memos and seizure records.

The commission also questioned Soomro about CCTV footage showing Mir Raza throwing his mobile phone.

Soomro said he had asked the investigation officer about the footage but was told that the officer had not seen it.

Asked whether he knew that a man named Sajjad had picked up the phone, Soomro said he had interviewed a BRT employee but had not recorded his statement.

He also confirmed that the investigation officer had not recorded Sajjad’s statement.

Soomro said the mobile phone was subsequently sent to the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD), adding that police had statements from the officials who sent and received the device as evidence of its transfer.

When asked whether the police team had entered a password and locked the phone, Soomro said they had not and that the CTD had done so.

The commission questioned the handling of the phone and expressed concern over what it described as serious lapses in its investigation and custody.

Soomro also said he had neither seen nor recovered the smartwatch allegedly mentioned by Adil Afzal. The commission questioned why no action had been taken against subordinates over such alleged negligence.

Other evidence and witnesses

The commission also questioned Soomro about a pistol cover found on July 31. He confirmed that he knew about it but said it had been found hanging at another location.

The commission asked why police had not investigated how the cover came to be there.

Soomro said police had investigated a fire reported on Aug 6 at the location where the body had been found.

The commission questioned the circumstances surrounding the fire and said the crime scene had effectively been destroyed. Soomro denied ordering the burning of the site and said he did not know who had ordered it.

The commission also referred to Shabbir Laghari’s statement that only 10 of 33 witnesses had been recorded.

Soomro was questioned about allegations that Mir Raza had demanded Rs30 million from witness Sarim. He said he had interviewed Sarim, who had made the claim, but his statement had not been recorded.

He also acknowledged knowing about an Rs8 million figure mentioned in a Dawn report. Asked who had provided a screenshot relating to the Rs30 million allegation to the media, he said the SHO had sent it to SSP East, who then forwarded it to him.

The commission also questioned him about a voice note attributed to witness Ali Shaz. Soomro said ASP Nida Junaid had forwarded the voice note to him, saying Ali Shaz claimed he could produce around 20 people and assist the police.

The commission pointed out that Ali Shaz’s statement had not been recorded by police until Aug 24.

Soomro said he had not had any telephone contact or meeting with ASP Punjab Police Shahzaib.

Cryptocurrency, financial angle

Asked whether the investigation had uncovered information about blackmailing or financial problems involving Mir Raza, Soomro said only statements from friends had been obtained.

He acknowledged that references to cryptocurrency trading had emerged in witness statements but said police had not determined the amount invested or any losses suffered.

He said Ahmed, Raziq, Sarim and Haitham had mentioned that Mir Raza traded in cryptocurrency.

The commission also questioned the involvement of ASP Nida Junaid, asking why she had remained involved despite saying she had no connection to the case.

Soomro said he had sent her only to interview Mir Raza’s fiancée.

He said he met the police surgeon on Aug 5 after Police Chief Azad Khan asked him to do so. Nida was also present at the meeting, he said, adding that he was unaware at the time of any connection between Nida and Shahzaib.

Vehicles and guest house

The commission questioned why police had not fully investigated vehicles seen near the relevant location.

Soomro said police had investigated a white Suzuki Alto and a silver-grey Suzuki Swift.

The commission pointed out that several people had reportedly been seen in a vehicle and questioned whether all of them had been investigated.

Soomro said four people had been identified but could not provide information about a fifth person.

The commission also asked about a motorcyclist seen repeatedly moving around the location.

Soomro said police had visited a guest house but did not find anyone relevant there.

He said nine people linked to the same jurisdiction were staying at the guest house.

The family alleged that the DVR containing the guest house’s CCTV footage had been taken away by Adil Afzal. Soomro said he had asked him about it but was told that this had not happened.

The family also alleged that people detained from the guest house were not subjected to an identification parade.

Commission’s criticism

The commission questioned whether the investigation had focused primarily on the suicide angle rather than examining other possible aspects of the case.

Soomro defended the investigation, saying the team had only six days and had received two post-mortem reports as well as contradictory statements from the police surgeon during that period.

He said investigators had been examining different aspects of the case.

The commission, however, questioned the extent of the investigation and criticised what it described as failures to collect CCTV footage, record witness statements and properly examine evidence.

During the proceedings, the commission strongly reprimanded Soomro over the investigation and told him that his career was at stake if he was unwilling to provide answers.

The commission also questioned why senior police officials had not taken action against subordinates over what it described as negligence and repeatedly pressed Soomro to accept responsibility for the investigation’s shortcomings.

Soomro’s statement was later resumed, with the commission continuing its questions about the financial allegations, witness accounts, police contacts and other aspects of the investigation.

Asked why Dr Osama Sheikh had been called to the Chief Minister’s House, Soomro said the doctor had been summoned to discuss progress in the case and that Azad Khan had called the police officials there.

The proceedings continued with further questioning of the SSP.

Jibran Nasir questions investigation before commission

Lawyer Jibran Nasir, who is representing Mir Raza’s family, has alleged that officials have repeatedly lied before the judicial commission investigating the death of Mir Raza, saying attempts were made to conceal facts on several issues.

Speaking to the media after the commission’s hearing, Nasir said Sindh Inspector General of Police had stated on August 6 that the Mir Raza case had been “90 per cent traced”.

He questioned why the exhumation of Mir Raza’s body was conducted just two days after the IG’s statement if the case had already been 90 per cent traced.

Nasir said officers appearing before the commission had also been questioned about various aspects of the investigation.

He added that several key questions about the investigation into Mir Raza’s death remained unanswered, with the commission’s proceedings bringing some of those issues to light.