Summary Ahmed’s lawyer questioned the commission’s treatment of him as a witness, while Ahmed reaffirmed cooperation with investigators and commitment to truth.
KARACHI (Dunya News) - Khalid Mumtaz, the counsel for Mir Raza’s business partner Ahmed and vendor Abdullah, has questioned the manner in which the commission questioned his client, saying he appeared as a witness rather than an accused.
Speaking to the media, Mumtaz said the commission was questioning Ahmed in a manner that made him feel as though he were an accused, despite his appearance as a witness.
He said Mir Raza had travelled to Islamabad once or twice previously, but Ahmed had not taken the matter seriously at the time. More than a month later, he said, Ahmed had still not reopened his shop.
According to the lawyer, Mir Raza’s father had gone to Bahadurabad and asked employees to reopen the shop, but they refused, leaving him angry. Mumtaz said they would comment on the matter after the commission issued its findings.
More to read: Sindh High Court rejects plea for JIT in Mir Raza case
He said Mir Raza had been repaying a loan of Rs45 million taken by his father, describing it as a family matter that he did not wish to discuss.
Mumtaz said Ahmed had also attended Mir Raza’s Soyem and claimed that there was nothing against him. He added that the case had become highly prominent in the media.
The lawyer further claimed that investigators had also sought Mir Raza’s father’s phone, but he did not provide it. He questioned why Mir Raza’s father had not contacted his son from July 29 to 31.
Mumtaz also said Mir Raza had told Abdullah a few days earlier that his father had made “another mistake.” He added that Ahmed had gone somewhere but was later reprimanded by his mother, saying all details would be disclosed at an appropriate time.
Meanwhile, Ahmed told the media that he had been cooperating with the investigation from the outset and would continue to speak about the truth and facts.
He said a business could not simply be wrapped up with Rs500,000 to Rs600,000 and claimed he had remained under investigation since July 30. Ahmed added that investigations also had established procedures that needed to be followed.
