The Laiba Ejaz Case: Seven Months of File Transfers and Unanswered Questions

A complaint was filed on December 11, 2026, detailing an alleged loss of 975,000 Pakistani rupees involving three people. Over the following seven months, the file moved between the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and local police. According to the available documents, it had reached the District Police Officer (DPO) in Mansehra by July 29, 2026. No substantive investigative step during that period is described. That administrative timeline is the strongest—and most uncomfortable—fact in the case.

This account cannot establish that Laiba Ejaz’s death was directly caused by an institution’s action or inaction. The available material does not clearly state the date or cause of her death, or its formal connection to the case. But the sequence of complaints and file transfers is enough to ask why, when similar allegations appeared in different places, responsibility took so long to assign and an investigation to begin.

An alleged method repeated across complaints

The complaint by Atif Jan concerned three people and Rs975,000. On December 11, 2026, he submitted it to the FIA office in Abbottabad, alleging that money had been taken in exchange for promises of employment. On July 7, 2026, the FIA’s Abbottabad office forwarded it to local police, saying the matter fell within police jurisdiction. On July 20, the Abbottabad DPO’s office returned the file to the FIA, saying it did not fall within its area and advising contact with the Mansehra DPO. On July 29, the FIA’s cybercrime wing forwarded it to the Mansehra DPO.

This sequence is said to be recorded in written transfer notes on the complaint. It is therefore more than a timeline based solely on the complainant’s recollection. The documents do not, however, prove that any official deliberately obstructed an investigation. They show that the complaint moved between offices for more than seven months; the available report does not identify an effective investigative step during that period.

Separately, a case involving three women from the family of a complainant named Sultan—Malaika, Faryal and Saima—was reportedly registered at a Mansehra city police station. Sultan said the accused, Noman, promised them jobs in a government institution. The alleged method was specific: taking money in the name of security clearance and medical examinations, referring them to CMH Rawalpindi for medical tests, and then providing appointment letters. When the women reportedly went to the relevant department, they were told the letters were fake.

Similar alleged patterns, but were the cases connected?

The significance of the two sets of complaints lies in their apparent similarities. One involved alleged payments from three people; the other described three women allegedly being lured with employment promises. Both accounts refer to appointments in sensitive government institutions, a process designed to appear official and allegedly forged documents. The reference to medical examinations at CMH may have been one signal used to lend credibility to the alleged scheme. The available material does not establish any role by the hospital or complicity by its staff.

When separate complaints point to a similar method, a basic investigative question follows: did police and the FIA compare names, payments, documents and the alleged recruitment process? The available account does not clearly mention a joint or parallel investigation. That omission does not prove that no comparison took place. But if it did, the public record should say what it found—and if it did not, why not.

Sultan said he had complained to the FIA, police and other forums. According to him, the FIA returned an application after about three months, saying the matter fell under police jurisdiction. He also claimed that, months before Laiba’s death, he told an investigating officer at the Mansehra city police station that Noman was deceiving another girl, Laiba. That statement matters because it alleges prior warning. Yet the available material gives no date for that complaint, no written record of it and no response from the investigating officer.

This is where the distinction between evidence and allegation must remain clear. File-transfer documents can establish the sequence of administrative handling. Sultan’s account records his claim that he gave a warning. Neither, by itself, proves that Laiba’s death would have been prevented by a timely arrest. That is a serious counterfactual claim, not an established legal causal link.

Did the file close after the death?

The case’s most consequential unanswered question concerns a statement attributed in the available report to Islamabad police. According to police, Noman was in custody when he was killed in gunfire by an accomplice, after which the case was closed. The full context of the statement, the date of the incident and an investigative report are not included in the available material. It should therefore be presented as the police account, not as an independently confirmed finding.

A claim that a person in custody died raises basic questions: Where did the shooting happen? Who was present? Which unit had custody? Was the incident independently investigated? The available material does not answer them. A single sentence cannot bridge the distance between “an accomplice’s gunfire” and “the case was closed.” The death of a suspect cannot substitute for examining the allegations, the purported appointment letters, the flow of money or the possibility of other victims.

The distinction between alleged institutional failure and responsibility for a death is equally important. The transfers raise questions about whether authorities acted in time. But with no clear date or cause of Laiba’s death, and no confirmed formal link between that death and Noman’s alleged offences, assigning responsibility for her death to an officer or department would go beyond the available evidence. Accountability may be warranted; causation remains unproven.

The institutions need to respond

The available material contains no response from the FIA, the Abbottabad DPO, the Mansehra DPO or the Mansehra city investigating officer to the criticism that complaints were not acted upon. It is unclear whether they were asked to comment and declined, or whether no request was made. That distinction matters: institutional silence and a failure by a reporter to obtain a response are not the same thing. A fair report requires written replies from the relevant offices, the dates complaints were received, the investigation status and the reasons files were transferred or returned.

Noman’s full identity, the circumstances of his detention, the investigation into his death and public records concerning Laiba’s death also need clarification. The authenticity of the appointment letters, the payment trail and the alleged medical process require independent examination. If the documents were forged, investigators should establish where they were produced and whether anyone helped make them appear official. The information available does not prove institutional collusion. It does show why the possibility should be addressed in the public record.

Before describing the case as one of “official apathy,” two levels of evidence must be kept apart. The first is the lengthy complaint process and movement between offices, which can be tested against dates and written notes. The second is a direct connection between that delay and Laiba’s death, for which decisive evidence is not yet available. The first question can be put to officials on the basis of documents; the second cannot be settled without an investigation.

The record remains incomplete, but it points to a clear next step: the FIA and relevant police units should publish the full chain of file transfers, the inquiry into the alleged prior warning, and the report concerning Noman’s death in custody. Until those answers arrive, the central documented fact remains that a complaint filed on December 11, 2026, was still being transferred between agencies on July 29, 2026. Further investigation must determine whether that was a jurisdictional dispute, an administrative failure, or part of a more serious story.