KARACHI: The inquiry commission investigating the Mir Raza case summoned the victim’s business partner, Ahmed, to the rostrum and questioned him about various aspects of the case.
During the hearing, Justice Umar Sial and Ahmed engaged in a detailed exchange, with the commission directing Ahmed to provide clear and direct information about anything he knew regarding the case.
The commission urged Ahmed to speak the truth before the inquiry panel. Referring to some of his media interviews, Justice Umar Sial observed that Ahmed had given the impression in those interviews that he possessed considerable information about the case.
According to the commission, Mir Raza and Ahmed were close friends, meaning Ahmed could potentially have knowledge of Raza’s personal circumstances, family matters and difficulties. The commission observed that close friends are often aware of issues such as financial problems, debts and other personal challenges.
Justice Umar Sial clarified that the commission’s primary objective was to establish the facts of the case rather than identify or declare anyone an accused without following the required legal process.
The commission further stated that some individuals had emerged during the investigation whose statements contained contradictions or were allegedly misleading. Ahmed, however, was advised to present his own position truthfully and clearly.
The commission said Mir Raza’s family had the right to seek answers to their questions regarding the case and its closure. At the same time, Ahmed was asked to address the questions and concerns surrounding his own role and position.
Commission Raises Questions Over Ahmed’s Role
During the proceedings, the commission told Ahmed that he had remained a person of interest to the panel from the outset. Justice Umar Sial remarked that the investigation had led the commission to understand that the individuals concerned were not directly involved in the role of those who fired weapons.
The commission also stated that Ahmed and certain other individuals had been prevented from meeting members of Mir Raza’s family. According to the panel, investigators had also reached those who allegedly stopped them from making contact with the family.
Justice Umar Sial said the investigation had brought several pieces of information to light and stressed that mistakes, if made, should be acknowledged.
The commission also questioned Ahmed about his interviews with the media and on social media platforms. It observed that his public statements had created the impression that he possessed significant information about the case.
The panel cautioned that making such statements publicly could ultimately prove counterproductive and complicate the situation further.
‘There Is No Fight Going On Here’
The commission clarified that the proceedings were not intended to create a confrontation with any party. Justice Umar Sial noted that Ahmed had also been a friend of Mir Raza and could raise any questions he had before the commission.
Ahmed was directed to submit his position and any information relevant to the case in writing, along with an affidavit.
The commission also referred to matters including pre-arrest bail and alleged demands for money, saying that such developments had raised questions about Ahmed’s role.
Justice Umar Sial further remarked that some of Ahmed’s media interviews gave the impression that he had been brought forward to discredit Mir Raza’s family.
Ahmed Directed to Meet Mir Raza’s Family
The commission advised Ahmed to refrain from further public discussion and instead meet Mir Raza’s family privately to answer their questions directly.
The panel also instructed members of Mir Raza’s family to speak to Ahmed themselves and ask him any questions they had regarding the case.
The commission directed Ahmed Bhardey to meet the family on the same day and share with them any facts or information he might have concerning the case.
Ahmed Bhardey responded that Mir Raza’s family was like his own family and said he would visit their home that day to meet them.
The commission indicated that Ahmed could be summoned again if required during the course of the investigation.
Jibran Nasir’s Position
Jibran Nasir, representing Mir Raza’s family, said that if Ahmed possessed any facts or important information concerning Mir Raza’s killing, he should provide it to the inquiry commission without delay.
Ahmed’s lawyer told the commission that he had complete sympathy for Mir Raza and his family and was present only to provide legal assistance to Ahmed.
The lawyer further argued that if the commission expected to be addressed as a court, it should also clarify the legal basis on which Ahmed’s pre-arrest bail had been considered.
Commission Appeals to Media
The commission also appealed to the media to report the Mir Raza case based on verified facts and refrain from spreading rumours or unverified information.
Justice Umar Sial said a substantial amount of public money was being spent on the commission’s proceedings and noted that issues involving alleged misrepresentation by police had also emerged during the investigation.
The commission expressed concerns over the police investigation, stating that several aspects of the Mir Raza case had not been handled properly by the police.
The panel also observed that cases which remain unresolved exist around the world, while in some instances families of victims do not pursue complaints against the police investigation or its handling of a case.
During the hearing, the commission also cautioned lawyer Khalid Mumtaz that making public statements against the commission would not be considered appropriate, stressing that maintaining the dignity and credibility of the commission was important.
The commission indicated that its investigation into various aspects of the Mir Raza case would continue, while Ahmed was directed to meet the victim’s family and provide any relevant information in his possession to the inquiry panel.
