Mir Raza Judicial Commission Records Statements of Business Partners, Driver and DSP
KARACHI, PAKISTAN — WEB DESK: A judicial commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of young Karachi businessman Mir Raza Ali recorded statements from his business partners, a driver and a senior police officer on Thursday as it continued examining the events surrounding his disappearance, death and the authorities’ initial response.
The commission, headed by Sindh High Court Justice Umar Sial, completed the statements of business partners Muhammad Ahmed and Muhammad Abdullah, driver Ehsanullah, and DSP Arshad Afridi before adjourning proceedings until September 7.
The proceedings form part of a wider fact-finding inquiry established by the Sindh government to examine the circumstances leading to Raza’s death, possible shortcomings in the medical and police response, and whether further investigation, forensic examination or legal and departmental action should be recommended.
Commission Questions Business Partner Over Finances
During Thursday’s hearing, Justice Sial questioned Muhammad Ahmed about his business relationship with Raza and the financial affairs of their venture.
Ahmed told the commission that an accountant had been hired in July and that, before then, the two partners had managed the business’s financial matters themselves.
Asked whether they had intended to sell the business, Ahmed said they had never considered doing so.
Separate current reporting says Ahmed told the commission that he had known Raza since childhood, had studied with him from first grade through college and had started a business with him in 2020.
The commission also asked questions about the partners’ financial dealings and events following Raza’s disappearance. The questioning itself should not be interpreted as an allegation that Ahmed was involved in Raza’s death.
Driver Gives Timeline of Mir Raza’s Journey
Driver Ehsanullah was questioned about when he received the booking involving Raza and when he dropped him off.
According to Express, Ehsanullah told the commission that he received a message at 3:57pm and dropped Raza off at 4:28pm.
His evidence is potentially significant because investigators and the commission are attempting to reconstruct Raza’s movements before his death.
However, appearing before the commission as a driver or witness does not make Ehsanullah a suspect. He had been formally summoned to provide evidence about the journey.
DSP Questioned Over Initial Suicide Account
Justice Sial also questioned DSP Arshad Afridi about the early police handling of the case.
The judge asked Afridi why Raza’s family had been informed that he had died by suicide. Afridi responded that he had not told the family it was suicide, according to Express.
The commission also questioned him about his suspension. Afridi said a DIG had suspended him and that he had received a show-cause notice.
These exchanges are relevant because the initial handling of Raza’s death — including conflicting medical findings, evidence collection and the police response to his disappearance — has been a major focus of scrutiny.
Earlier commission proceedings examined discrepancies involving the initial post-mortem examination and questioned whether failures in the handling of the case amounted to negligence.
Those questions remain part of an inquiry; they are not final findings of criminal responsibility.
Abdullah Alleges 36-Hour Detention
Raza’s business partner Muhammad Abdullah also gave evidence to the commission.
Abdullah said he had entered Raza’s room with the permission of Raza’s mother. He further alleged that despite cooperating with police, he had been kept in unlawful detention for 36 hours.
That detention allegation should remain clearly attributed to Abdullah. The report reviewed does not establish that a court or the commission has independently ruled that his detention was unlawful.
Similarly, neither Abdullah nor Muhammad Ahmed should be described as accused or implicated in Raza’s killing merely because they were summoned and questioned.
More Witnesses to Appear on September 7
The commission was unable to record all scheduled statements on Thursday.
Justice Sial said Raziq, Haitham and SHO Adeel Afzal had been waiting since morning, but their evidence could not be recorded because of time constraints. He apologised and said their statements would be taken on Monday.
The commission also summoned SHO Kamran Qureshi and head clerk Zeeshan for the next proceedings.
The hearing was subsequently adjourned until September 7.
Commission Has 30-Day Mandate
The Sindh government established the commission in August, with Justice Umar Sial appointed to head the inquiry. Its terms require proceedings to be completed within 30 days.
The commission is examining the circumstances surrounding Raza’s death as well as possible negligence by medical and police officials. It can recommend further investigation, forensic analysis or legal and departmental proceedings.
Mir Raza Ali, a young businessman and IBA graduate, went missing on July 28, and his body was recovered the following day in Karachi’s Gulistan-e-Jauhar area. His family has consistently maintained that he was murdered and has raised concerns about the initial investigation.
The case drew additional scrutiny after questions emerged about the initial post-mortem and evidence handling.
High Court Declines Family’s JIT Request
Separately, the Sindh High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by Raza’s family seeking the creation of a joint investigation team (JIT).
The court held that constituting a JIT was the government’s prerogative and declined to supervise or interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. It nevertheless directed that the investigation be conducted fairly, impartially and expeditiously.
That ruling does not end the criminal investigation or the judicial commission’s proceedings.
The judicial commission and the police investigation are also distinct processes. The commission is examining circumstances and possible institutional failures, while the criminal investigation concerns responsibility for Raza’s death.
Thursday’s testimony therefore represents another stage of evidence gathering rather than a determination of who was responsible for Raza’s death.
