Commission questions ASP Nida over role in Mir Raza murder case

An inquiry commission probing the murder of Karachi businessman Mir Raza has questioned Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Nida about her role in the investigation and her meeting with the victim’s fiancée.

Recording her statement before the commission, ASP Nida explained why she had met Mir Raza’s fiancée during the investigation. The commission questioned her over why an ASP from another province was sending her to meet people connected to the case and giving her instructions.

The commission asked whether it was routine for an officer from another province to direct her and whether she had the authority to interfere in an ongoing investigation. It observed that her involvement was raising questions about her role in the case.

ASP Nida said her meeting with Ali Shaz was a routine meeting conducted for the purpose of investigation. The commission, however, questioned why she had personally taken Ali Shaz to meet officials instead of sending him to the investigating officer to record his statement regarding the audio note.

The commission expressed displeasure and remarked that the Ferozabad police station was not a “White House”. It said ASP Nida could have taken Ali Shaz to the relevant officers herself if necessary.

ASP Nida maintained that recording the witness’s statement was the responsibility of the investigation team.

The commission questioned whether she was attempting to cover up certain aspects of the case. It also asked how it could be certain that she had not shared the audio with the media.

The commission said it was still trying to understand why ASP Nida felt the need to send the message to the SSP. It also questioned how the audio note could be treated as admissible evidence in court.

The commission observed that a murder had taken place, yet the audio had allegedly been sent to the SSP as part of what ASP Nida described as routine communication.

It asked whether she routinely handled cases in this manner, saying the proceedings were raising serious questions about the way the case had been dealt with.

According to the commission, the audio became the starting point of the narrative surrounding a loan. It questioned why ASP Nida had sent the audio to the SSP if she did not consider it significant.

Lawyer Jibran Nasir told the commission that screenshots of the conversation involving Ali Shaz had also gone viral along with the audio.

ASP Nida said Ali Shaz had sent only one voice note. The commission then asked whether she had also sent the screenshots.

ASP Nida replied that she did not remember. The commission responded that her answer suggested that she had sent them.

The commission warned ASP Nida that she appeared to be taking the proceedings too lightly and reminded her that her career was at stake. It said she had been closely following the case and asked whether she believed Mir Raza’s death was a murder or a suicide.

ASP Nida said the investigation was still ongoing and that it was not her case. The commission questioned her response, saying she appeared to remember only certain things while now referring to the ongoing investigation.

The commission also asked whether she had ever contacted a person named Sarim.

The commission said it was aware that Mir Raza had allegedly sent Sarim a message regarding Rs30 million. ASP Nida said she did not know how the screenshots had reached the media.

The commission also questioned whether the team headed by SSP Samiullah Soomro had been investigating the case as a suicide or a murder.

ASP Nida said that, to the best of her knowledge, the team had not reached any final conclusion at that stage. She said the case was later transferred to another team, while the earlier team had only been collecting evidence.

The commission noted that this meant the team led by SSP Samiullah Soomro had not declared the incident a suicide at that point.

The commission then questioned ASP Nida about her visit to Mir Raza’s fiancée along with Arshad Afridi. ASP Nida said she had accompanied the team only to provide assistance because she was a woman.

The commission also asked her about a person named Amberin and questioned why her name had come up during the investigation.

ASP Nida said SSP Samiullah Soomro had provided her with three names. She said she had been given the name and phone number of Shiza, which she later learned was the number of Mir Raza’s mother. Another name, Maryam, was also provided, but the number belonged to a man.

She said the third name given to her was Amberin.

The commission subsequently questioned Mir Raza’s mother about why Amberin had attracted attention when other names were also available.

Mir Raza’s mother explained that her official number had been allocated to someone at a bank under the name Shiza.

During the proceedings, lawyer Jibran Nasir also pointed out that Arshad Afridi was not part of the investigation team.

Nasir has separately called for the formation of a joint investigation team (JIT), saying that such a step was necessary if the authorities genuinely wanted to identify those responsible for Mir Raza’s death.