Mir Raza murder case: commission grills business partner over finances

KARACHI: Muhammad Ahmed, a friend and business partner of slain businessman Mir Raza Ali, told a judicial commission on Thursday that he and his brother went to Raza’s home after his disappearance and searched his room along with family members.

During the hearing, the judicial commission asked pointed questions from him over their dealings, the disclosure of a third partner in a restaurant venture and demanding payments from his family while Raza was missing.

The judicial commission, headed by Justice Omar Sial, held its third hearing at the Sindh High Court.

Muhammad Ahmed said he and Raza had studied at the same school and started a business together in 2020.

He told the commission that their business was a registered partnership in which both held a 50 per cent share. He said he also had a separate business, while Raza managed their Bahadurabad branch and he looked after the branch in Nazimabad.

Responding to questions about the financial management of the business, Ahmed said that an employee had been hired to maintain accounts and oversee administrative matters.

The commission also questioned him about the timing of tax payments to the Sindh Revenue Board, asking why the business, which began operations in 2020, had paid tax to the SRB only in 2024.

Ahmed replied that the tax was deposited after the business received a notice from the revenue authority.

Friend describes search of Raza’s room

Ahmed said he went to Raza’s house in his car at around 8am on July 28. He said he had only one vehicle and his elder brother accompanied him.

According to his testimony, three or four people were already present at Raza’s house when he reached there.

After obtaining permission from the family and consulting one another, he said, they searched the house for clues because Raza was missing.

Ahmed said that he had frequently visited Raza’s room and house because they had been childhood friends. He said that he, his brother, Raziq, Raza’s mother and sister went into the room together to look for anything that could provide a clue to his whereabouts.

He told the commission that a cigarette packet was found in the room and Raza used to keep ‘hashish’ there.

The commission questioned him on why he considered it necessary to mention hashish before the judicial body.

Ahmed replied that he had come before the commission to clarify his position and therefore considered it appropriate to tell the truth.

When the commission questioned whether it would not have been more appropriate for Raza’s family to search the room themselves, Ahmed said everyone was distressed and he had searched the room to help the family.

Commission questions payment demand during disappearance

The commission also questioned Ahmed about a woman whom he had instructed to send an email concerning a payment.

Ahmed confirmed that he had asked her to send an email regarding the money.

When the commission asked why he had done so while his friend was missing, he said payments were made every Tuesday and that Raza had previously travelled to Islamabad without informing anyone.

The commission challenged the explanation, observing that Raza was missing while Ahmed was asking the family about money.

The commission told him that it did not find his account entirely convincing but would nevertheless place his replies on the record, and directed him to answer only the questions being asked.

Ahmed said that his last communication with Raza had been through WhatsApp and that he had sent him a message at around 4am.

Questions over third business partner

The commission also questioned Ahmed about another business partner.

The commission asked whether another partner was involved in the restaurant business and pointed out that it had an agreement mentioning a third partner. Ahmed acknowledged the existence of the agreement.

The commission questioned why he had not previously disclosed the third partner, noting that the agreement bore his signature, and asked how much money had been paid.

The line of questioning placed the business and financial arrangements between the partners under particular scrutiny during the hearing.

CCTV footage, pistol and Raza’s disappearance

Ahmed also told the commission that one of his employees was responsible for collecting security guards’ weapons at the end of their shifts.

He said that after learning about the matter, he reached the shop at around 9:30am and checked CCTV footage.

According to Ahmed, the footage showed Raza leaving with a pistol, following which he informed Ferozabad police station.

The commission questioned why he had not considered informing Raza’s family first.

Ahmed responded that Raza had told him the previous year that his father had suffered losses in business. He said Raza had also told him during a previous trip to Islamabad that his father had mortgaged the family home to obtain money.

Ahmed said Raza appeared worried and that someone had also called him from a police station.

Bykea driver recounts last ride

The commission also recorded the statement of Bykea driver Ehsanullah, who said he had picked up Raza and dropped him in Gulistan-e-Jauhar.

Ehsanullah told the commission that he received the ride request at 3:57pm and reached the pickup location at around 4:06pm.

He said he called Raza at 4:07pm and, after Raza told him he would arrive within two minutes, started the ride at around 4:09pm.

When asked exactly where he had picked Raza up from, the driver said the location was on Khalid Bin Walid Road. He told the commission that he was not proficient in English and that the location was still available on his mobile phone.

The driver then opened his phone’s location data and handed the device to the commission registrar.

Ehsanullah said Raza asked him to drive on the wrong side of the road. When he objected, saying there could be a camera and he might be fined, Raza allegedly told him that there would be no problem.

The driver said Raza later asked him to play something on the ride. When he replied that there was no music on his phone, Raza offered to play it himself.

Ehsanullah said they then travelled towards Tariq Road before Raza asked him to stop following the location and instead let him guide the way, telling him to drive quickly.

The driver said Raza directed him towards the Liaquat National Hospital road, then towards Dalmia and subsequently towards Gulistan-e-Jauhar.

He said Raza then directed him into a lane near a well-known bakery before taking an uphill road and finally reaching the designated location.

According to the driver, he dropped Raza in Gulistan-e-Jauhar Block 2 at around 4:28pm.

Ehsanullah said Raza gave him Rs1,000 for the ride and refused to take the change when the driver tried to return it.

The driver also told the commission that the case had severely affected his life. He said his landlord had evicted him from his accommodation in Gulshan-e-Jamal and the company had also terminated his services.

He said he was currently unemployed and had been staying at a police station.

“My circumstances are very difficult,” the driver told the commission, adding that one of his brothers had previously died while working as a driver.

Police testimony over alleged suicide claim

The commission also questioned DSP Arshad Afridi about his interaction with Raza’s family.

Afridi said he and the SHO of Ferozabad met the family on the night of the incident.

The commission asked whether he or the Ferozabad SHO had told the family that Raza had committed suicide.

Afridi denied making such a statement and said the SHO had also not said that Raza had died by suicide.

He said the family had shown them some videos.

When the commission asked whether he remembered what the videos contained, Afridi said he recalled being shown some videos relating to the body.

The commission cautioned the police officer to be truthful and not conceal facts to protect a fellow officer, stressing that everything being stated before the commission was being made part of the official record.

Background to Mir Raza case

Mir Raza, a young businessman in Karachi, went missing on July 28, 2026, after returning home from work. His body was recovered from Gulistan-e-Jauhar the following day.

Questions were subsequently raised over the initial post-mortem report.

Earlier, Karachi Police Surgeon Dr Summaiya Syed Tariq pointed out several shortcomings in the report, including discrepancies concerning the direction of the bullet’s entry and exit, details of injuries and the absence of certain X-ray and forensic procedures relating to the shooting.

Following demands from the family, the court allowed the exhumation of Raza’s body and constituted a medical board for a fresh examination.

His body was exhumed on August 8, after which an eight-member medical board conducted a second post-mortem examination and collected various samples.

Following the second post-mortem report, the murder section was added to the case and a new investigation team was constituted.

Police have said the investigation is continuing on the basis of medical reports, digital evidence and other available material, while the final medical findings will also form part of the investigation.

The judicial commission adjourned its proceedings until Monday.

SHC rejects plea seeking JIT to probe Mir Raza murder

Earlier, the Sindh High Court (SHC) rejected a petition seeking the formation of a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the murder of young businessman Mir Raza, directing the investigating officer to complete the probe in a fair, impartial and expeditious manner.

The court issued its detailed written order after announcing its reserved decision on the petition filed by Mir Raza’s family, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing police investigation.

The court noted that the Supreme Court order cited by the petitioners was different in nature and did not apply to the present case.

The petitioners had argued for the formation of a JIT, saying the police investigation was not satisfactory. The court, however, said the investigating officer had assured it that all possible efforts would be made to complete the probe.

The investigating officer would use all available resources in accordance with the law and, if required, seek assistance from other law-enforcement and investigative agencies, the court said.

The high court directed that the investigation into the Mir Raza murder case be conducted impartially, fairly and expeditiously.

It also said the petitioners could use all available legal remedies to ensure that the investigation was conducted transparently and fairly.