Mir Raza case: Commission records testimonies of business partner, accountant, supervisor

KARACHI: A judicial commission investigating the death of businessman Mir Raza Ali on Monday recorded statements from his business associate Ahmed Hassan Sheikh, accountant Muhammad Umair and supervisor Kazim, with the proceedings focusing on financial dealings, the victim’s business affairs and the police investigation.

The commission, headed by Sindh High Court Justice Omar Sial, also heard evidence concerning the handling of Mir Raza’s mobile phone and other investigative material.

Ahmed Hassan Sheikh told the commission that he had invested Rs3 million with Mir Raza to expand the business.

He said that he met Ahmed and Abdullah in 2026 and knew Usman Bozai because he lived in the same building.

Asked by the commission whether he traded on the stock exchange, Ahmed Hassan said he had made only a small investment there.

He said that his family was involved in the trading of rice and the buying and selling of vehicles.

Ahmed Hassan said that Usman Bozai had told him that he could not provide the required money, after which Mir Raza approached him and he agreed to invest.

He told the commission that an agreement was reached on July 2 and he transferred the money to Mir Raza’s account on July 5.

Ahmed Hassan said that he was given two cheques of Rs1 million each, while two cheques for Rs500,000 each were not provided. He said he was told that the cheque book had run out.

The commission also questioned Ahmed Hassan about his statement to police, and he said investigators had asked him questions relating to the agreement.

Accountant details business dealings

Muhammad Umair, who worked on the restaurant’s tax filings and financial records, told the commission that Ahmed, Abdullah and Mir Raza had contacted him in 2024.

Umair said that he was not a lawyer but prepared profit-and-loss accounts, cash-flow data and financial statements.

He told the commission that he contacted the business partners on July 15 because he was unable to understand their financial data. They met at the Nazimabad branch on July 16 after the business partners received notices from the Sindh Revenue Board, he said.

Umair said he had no meeting with them after July 18.

He explained that the financial data was normally finalised at the end of each month, but the process could not be completed in this case.

According to Umair, Abdullah informed him on July 28 that Mir Raza was missing.

Umair said that he contacted Ahmed and Abdullah on July 30 regarding the filing of tax returns but could not reach either of them.

Police recorded his statement on August 22, he told the commission.

The commission had previously summoned Umair along with Mir Raza’s business supervisor Kazim, investor Ahmed Hassan Sheikh and other officials for the Sept 21 hearing.

Supervisor denies telling police Mir Raza was under financial stress

Kazim, who worked as a supervisor at Wafflix, told the commission that he had received his salary regularly, except for the salary for July.

He said the business had initially been doing well but sales had declined somewhat in the months before Mir Raza’s death.

Kazim described Mir Raza as being like a brother and said he had never seen him worried.

He said that his salary was sometimes paid by Mir Raza and sometimes by Ahmed.

Kazim told the commission that police recorded his statement on August 3 at Ferozabad police station.

Asked whether police had threatened or intimidated him, Kazim said they had not.

He said that his statement was recorded on the first floor of the police station by an officer wearing glasses whose name he did not know.

During questioning, Kazim specifically denied telling police that Mir Raza had been worried because of money.

He also denied telling police that Mir Raza had been under stress because of debt.

Kazim said he had never seen Mir Raza misbehave with, abuse or fight with anyone.

Phone taken during investigation

Kazim told the commission that his mobile phone had been taken during the investigation.

He said it was taken by a second investigation team and was later returned to him, although he did not know the identity of the person who took it.

During the hearing, Kazim identified a person who, according to him, had taken his and Shehryar’s mobile phones.

He said the man was in civilian clothes and was present with Ferozabad SHO Adeel Afzal, but he did not know the man’s name. Kazim said he believed the person was a police official.

The issue of police handling of phones and other evidence has previously come under scrutiny from the commission. The panel has questioned investigators over the handling of evidence and delays in the investigation.

Pistol missing from restaurant

Kazim also gave evidence about the pistol kept at the restaurant.

He said that when a guard arrived at around 6pm, the guard informed him that the pistol was missing.

Kazim said the weapon was normally placed in a locker by the guard when the restaurant closed.

The commission has previously examined the handling of evidence, including the victim’s mobile phone, watch, holster and shell casings, during its questioning of police investigators.

Payment made using Ahmed’s phone after disappearance

During the proceedings, the commission was also told that on July 28, when Mir Raza was missing, Ahmed’s mobile number was used instead of Mir Raza’s number for a payment-related transaction.

The detail was raised in the context of the commission’s examination of the business and financial dealings surrounding the case.

The commission has separately been examining Mir Raza’s financial records. The Sindh High Court has sought a response from the State Bank of Pakistan by Oct 1 on investigators’ request for information about his bank accounts and transactions, which investigators say they need to trace the movement of money and identify the accounts involved.

Family raises concerns over meeting with business partner

Lawyer Jibran Nasir, representing Mir Raza’s family, conveyed the family’s position to the commission.

According to the family, business partner Ahmed had met them on Saturday for around two and a half hours.

Mir Raza’s mother told the commission that she had repeatedly asked Ahmed whether Mir Raza had any bad habits or whether he knew anything about what had happened to him.

She said Ahmed had repeatedly denied knowing anything and maintained that there was nothing of that nature.

The family said Ahmed had also met them separately while his family remained outside, according to the account presented before the commission.

Ahmed had previously sought time from the commission to meet Mir Raza’s family. The commission had allowed him to submit any additional position through an affidavit following that meeting and said such a statement would also be made publicly available.

Commission questions witness over police contact, financial claims

The judicial commission questioned witness Ali Shad over his contact with police officers, a voice note circulated on social media and claims about Mir Raza’s financial difficulties.

The commission also summoned forensic pathologist Dr Usama Sheikh for questioning over his post-mortem reports, while Mir Raza’s family and fiancee submitted applications seeking further action in the case.

During his testimony, Ali Shad told the commission that he made long-term investments in the stock exchange and had previously operated a restaurant in the United States in 2019. He said he currently worked in IT services and website design.

Ali Shad said he used to attend public meetings addressed by Mir Raza and had met him for the first time in 2023.

He told the commission that ASP Shahzaib Mushtaq was his brother, who served in Punjab Police, while ASP Nida had been undergoing training under him.

Ali Shad said he went to Ferozabad police station after Nida called him but his statement was not recorded there. He later called his brother in the police and informed him about Mir Raza’s death.

The commission questioned why Ali Shad had felt the need to contact his police officer brother about Mir Raza’s death, particularly when, according to the commission, he was neither a suspect nor had any direct involvement in the case.

The commission also questioned him about his contact with ASP Nida.

Ali Shad said a screenshot and voice note involving him had circulated in the media and that he had shared the voice note with Nida on August 6.

When asked whether he had evidence of the communication, Ali Shad said he did not have a record because the chat had been deleted.

The commission asked whether the subsequent circulation of the chat showed that Ali Shad or Nida had distributed the message.

Ali Shad replied that Nida might have shared it but said he had nothing to do with its circulation.

The commission chairman questioned the contents of the voice note, saying it had created an impression that Mir Raza had suffered losses in his business and was worried.

Ali Shad said he had asked Nida why this had happened but had not received a satisfactory answer.

He said a second police investigation team recorded his statement on Aug 24. According to Ali Shad, no police official had questioned him about the voice note or its circulation and police had never taken his phone.

The commission questioned why his voice recording was being circulated while his phone had not been taken and he had not been questioned about it.

Witness details Mir Raza’s financial dealings

Ali Shad said he knew Mir Raza through their mutual friend Faizur Rehman.

The commission questioned him about his earlier statement that Mir Raza had borrowed money from Faizur Rehman and later repaid it.

Asked whether he had said Mir Raza had sought Rs5 million from the son of a builder associated with Lucky Builders, Ali Shad said he had heard about a builder but was hearing the name Lucky for the first time.

Ali Shad acknowledged telling police that Mir Raza would ask people he met for money.

Asked who Mir Raza had approached, he said he had sought money from him, Faizur Rehman and the builder’s son.

The commission also asked Ali Shad whether he had said that Mir Raza was seeking money from him not to invest in the restaurant but to cover losses related to cryptocurrency.

Ali Shad replied that he had made such a statement.

Witness questioned over departure from Pakistan

Ali Shad told the commission that he had previously lived in Gulistan-e-Jauhar Block 2 but moved to Defence around two months earlier because his wife, a dentist, had completed her house job and the new location was closer to her clinic.

He said that on July 28 he was at his office on Tariq Road until around 6:00 or 6:30pm before going to Karachi Club for a workout.

Asked whether his entry to Karachi Club was recorded, Ali Shad said it was. He said he learned that Mir Raza had gone missing on July 29.

Ali Shad said he owned a white Alto and a grey Swift and that neither vehicle was fitted with a tracker.

The commission also questioned him about his departure from Pakistan shortly after Mir Raza went missing.

Ali Shad said he had planned to travel to Baku on July 30 and left for Azerbaijan on July 31. He said his ticket had been booked on July 29 and he obtained the required visa within about three hours.

The commission questioned whether he had considered it unusual to leave the country after the death of a young man about whom he had been concerned.

Ali Shad also said his cousin’s husband was an SSP posted in the Sukkur region.

Asked whether the SSP relative had exerted any pressure on anyone in connection with the case, Ali Shad denied it.

He also said none of his parents or siblings worked for the Sindh government.

The commission chairman questioned whether ASP Nida had asked him to take any such steps and criticised her conduct.

Commission summons pathologist Usama Sheikh

The commission also summoned Dr Usama Sheikh and questioned him over his repeated appearances before the panel and his post-mortem reports concerning Mir Raza.

The commission chairman questioned Dr Sheikh about his continued appearances before the commission and accused him of contributing to controversy surrounding the proceedings and arranging phone calls.

The chairman said the commission had examined numerous post-mortem cases and questioned aspects of Dr Sheikh’s findings, including the direction from which a bullet had entered.

Dr Sheikh told the commission that he wanted to clarify that the post-mortem report he had prepared was within the knowledge of Dr Summaiya Syed Tariq, the police surgeon.

The commission chairman, however, said Dr Sheikh had prepared two post-mortem reports and that the two reports contained different wording.

The chairman told Dr Sheikh that he would not be given another opportunity to record his statement and criticised him over his conduct.

The commission chairman also said the police surgeon had not made any inappropriate statement against Dr Sheikh.

Lawyer brought before commission over courtroom disruption

Dr Usama Sheikh also presented before the commission a lawyer who had allegedly caused a disturbance on the court premises.

The commission questioned the lawyer, who said he was currently practising as a lawyer.

The commission asked whether it should write to the Sindh Bar Council to seek cancellation of his licence.

The chairman questioned whether the lawyers were coming to the commission merely to create disorder and said such conduct was inappropriate for someone entering the legal profession.

The lawyer subsequently apologised to the commission.

Mir Raza’s fiancee submits application over leaked chats

Mir Raza’s fiancee, Salwa, submitted a written application to the commission through her lawyer Jibran Nasir.

Nasir told the commission that Salwa’s chats with Mir Raza had been leaked and subsequently discussed in a podcast.

He said material from Salwa’s phone had emerged publicly without the phone first undergoing forensic examination.

Nasir also requested that the commission provide the questionnaires prepared for senior police officers Amir Farooqi and Azad Khan after the statement of Samiullah had been completed.

The commission chairman said the panel would examine the request.

The chairman also questioned Nasir over what he described as an attempt to steer the case towards cryptocurrency, asking why the lawyer wanted to take the entire matter in that direction.

Nasir’s submissions followed the commission’s ongoing examination of Mir Raza’s financial affairs and the accounts of people who had dealings with him.

Jibran Nasir seeks CPLC officials’ appearance

Nasir also requested that representatives of the Citizens-Police Liaison Committee (CPLC) be summoned before the commission.

The commission chairman said he could not summon everyone and directed Nasir to submit a written application.

He said the commission would decide whether the CPLC representatives needed to appear or whether written questions could instead be sent to them.

Proceedings adjourned

The commission completed Monday’s proceedings and adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, with notices issued for the next hearing.

The panel is continuing to examine witness testimony, police investigation records, forensic evidence and Mir Raza’s financial and business dealings as it investigates the circumstances surrounding his death.

Commission addresses social media criticism

During the proceedings, Justice Omar Sial also referred to criticism of the commission on some social media platforms.

The judge said the commission appeared to have been targeted by criticism on some social media platforms, according to the proceedings.

The commission has been conducting hearings into the circumstances surrounding Mir Raza’s death and possible negligence during the investigation.

Senior police officers to respond in writing

The commission has separately sought written responses from Additional Inspector General Karachi Azad Khan and DIG Amir Farooqi rather than summoning them for questioning in person.

The panel said it wanted to question the senior officers but decided to send written questions while taking their official standing into consideration.

Lawyer Tajammal Lodhi has been tasked with delivering the questions and receiving the officers’ sealed responses. The commission has said their responses will also be made available to the public.

Mir Raza’s family was given until Monday to submit questions for the two senior officers, which will also be forwarded to them.

Commission examining police investigation

The commission’s scrutiny of the police investigation has intensified in recent hearings.

During the Sept 17 proceedings, the panel questioned former investigating officer Shabbir Laghari over the handling of the crime scene, daily diary entries, CCTV footage, witness statements and other evidence. The commission also questioned the handling and chain of custody of items including Mir Raza’s mobile phone, smartwatch, holster and shell casings.

The commission has also previously questioned the first post-mortem conducted by Dr Usama Sheikh and decided to record his statement again. Dr Sheikh and Sindh Director General Health Services Pervez Ahmed Sheikh were among those summoned for Monday’s proceedings.

The panel has said it is facing time constraints in completing its proceedings within the prescribed period.

Mir Raza, a young entrepreneur and owner of the Wafflix dessert business, went missing in Karachi on July 28 and his body was found the following day in the Gulistan-e-Jauhar area.

His family has maintained that he was murdered. The judicial commission was constituted to examine the circumstances surrounding his death, possible negligence in the investigation and whether further forensic, investigative or departmental action is required.