Prosecution, defense clash over evidence as 9th witness testifies in Katanga murder case

At approximately 9:30 am on Tuesday, October 1, as the court awaited Judge Isaac Muwata, presiding over the case of Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and four others, four sticks marked DFS/NA/682/2023 were brought in as exhibits. These items were found at the Katanga residence on November 2, 2023, the day businessman Henry Katanga died from a gunshot wound. The hearing began shortly thereafter, with Counsel Macdosman Kabega, representing the defense, resuming his cross-examination of the prosecution’s eighth witness, Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, director of Forensic Services for the police. Mubiru had conducted the analysis of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples collected from the crime scene. Kabega’s questioning initially focused on the alleged murder weapon. He specifically inquired about whether Mubiru had received ten rounds of ammunition in the magazine and one round in the chamber. “Mr. Mubiru, did you receive these items?” Kabega asked. Mubiru confirmed that he had received the exhibits on November 6, 2023. He clarified that the swabs from the postmortem arrived first, while the pistol, which had been discovered on the bed of the deceased, was received as the fifth exhibit. The defense’s attention then shifted to the sticks, which the defense team alleges may have been used to assault A1, Molly Katanga, the night before her husband’s death. The four sticks included a mopping rag and a copper walking stick. Kabega requested that the sticks be fully unwrapped, stating, “My lord, I would like the sticks to be fully unwrapped.” Judge Muwata responded, “But we are already seeing they are sticks.”“We are just assuming, my lord,” Kabega replied, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination. When questioned about whether the police had provided swabs for the sticks, Mubiru stated that he had conducted his own swabs on three of the sticks, swabbing along their lengths. However, under further cross-examination, Kabega challenged Mubiru, pointing out that the forensic report did not indicate that he had swabbed the length of the sticks. Additionally, some of the swabs from the sticks were missing from the court proceedings. Regarding the mopping rag, the report lacked details on which specific part of the rag was swabbed. Moreover, Mubiru admitted that the fourth stick was not swabbed. “My lord, I did not swab it because I did not see any visible bloodstains on it,” he explained. Kabega also focused his cross-examination on the photographic evidence presented in the DNA report. Kabega questioned the witness Mubiru about the photographs in his report, specifically those found on pages 38 to 44. Mubiru acknowledged that while he supervised the team that took the photographs, he could not recall the exact date they were taken. Kabega pointed out, “Your report indicates that you took those photos, but it doesn’t specify when they were taken. Is that accurate?” He further pressed the witness about the date associated with a photograph on page 38, which depicted the general packaging of an exhibit. “I can see a date there. Is that the date when you took the photos?” he asked. Mubiru responded that the photograph in question was taken on November 4, 2023, at the time of receiving the exhibits. Kabega, however, challenged this statement, suggesting that the witness was being untruthful. “I want to suggest to you that on that date, the exhibits were not in your possession,” he asserted. Despite the challenge, Mubiru remained steadfast in his claim that the photographs were taken upon receiving the exhibits. Kabega then directed his attention to a photograph on page 41 of the DNA report, which showed a pistol. According to the report, the pistol was accompanied by an envelope marked as evidence property, with its chain of custody recorded on Police Form 17A, PIDA 1B. The exhibits were reportedly received at the forensic gateway on November 3, 2023, and assigned a lab number. Kabega inquired, “What was the examination required?” Mubiru explained that he was tasked with comparing the DNA on the pistol with DNA traces that had been submitted earlier, including swabs taken from an individual named Denise Nayebare. However, Kabega disputed this claim, suggesting that the police did not possess Nayebare’s swab at the time and that Mubiru himself had requested it. Kabega noted that the swab from Nayebare was received on November 6, 2023, while Mubiru’s report indicated that the request for comparison was made on November 3, 2023. “The police couldn’t have asked you on November 3 to carry out a comparison with a swab they didn’t have. It was you who asked the police to conduct the swab,” Kabega argued. Mubiru denied the allegation, maintaining, “My Lord, that’s not true. I did not request the swab from the police.” With that statement, the defense concluded its two-month cross-examination of the witness. However, Kabega requested the option to recall Mubiru for further questioning if needed. Judge Isaac Muwata responded, “You will make the application when the time comes.” Prosecutor Samali Wakooli began her reexamination of the witness. She requested a 30-minute recess to confer with Mubiru before proceeding. After the break, Wakooli resumed her questioning, focusing on the defense’s claim that Mubiru had examined a different exhibit than the one provided, similar to a previous issue in the Kato Kajubi case. The DNA report authored by Mubiru referred to a “black Zastava UG1622200061 CZ999 compact.” However, the defense argued that no such firearm was found at the crime scene. Mubiru clarified that the weapon examined was indeed the one recovered from the scene, attributing the discrepancy to a typographical error in the report. “My lord, the report mentioned ‘CZ999,’ but that was a typing error. ‘CZ99’ is the correct model of the weapon,” he explained. Prosecutor Wakooli then focused on the model of the gun and the unique features that could identify the firearm. This line of questioning sparked a disagreement between the prosecution and the defense, with defense counsel Macdosman Kabega arguing that Wakooli was exceeding the scope of the previous cross-examination. “My lord, my learned friend here is going beyond the questions that were put to the witness during the cross-examination,” Kabega asserted. Wakooli, however, countered that the gun model had been discussed during Kabega’s cross-examination. “My lord, counsel questioned the witness about the model, and that is precisely what I am pursuing,” she argued. Kabega disputed this, pointing out that when the witness was questioned earlier about the gun model, he had refrained from providing specifics, claiming he was not a ballistics expert. “My lord, if anything is beyond the scope of re-examination, we will not shy away from addressing it,” Kabega added. Wakooli maintained that her questions were a direct extension of the issues raised during cross-examination. She then asked the witness to clarify which parts of the gun were examined and why those specific areas were chosen. This request followed earlier criticism from the defense, which questioned why certain parts of the firearm had been excluded from the analysis. Mubiru explained that he focused on parts that could contribute to the discharge of the weapon. “One must load the weapon, which is why I considered the magazine. To chamber a round of ammunition, the slide or barrel area must be engaged, and finally, the discharge occurs by pulling the trigger,” he explained. Mubiru added that he treated the trigger and the trigger housing as a single unit during the swabbing process because they typically interacted. Wakooli then shifted her questioning to the circumstances under which a firearm could become contaminated with blood, addressing claims by the defense that blood from the crime scene might have transferred onto the gun. “When you examined the gun, did you observe any blood?” she asked. Mubiru replied, “My lord, there were no visible blood stains.” To provide further clarity on the matter, two actual firearms were brought into the courtroom by security personnel. Wakooli noted, “A toy pistol may not sufficiently demonstrate what we need; so, we have requested real firearms for this illustration.” After the firearms were presented, Mubiru was asked to demonstrate which parts of the gun would have been in contact with the floor at the crime scene. He clarified, “The lower part of the grip and the slide, where the barrel is housed, would be touching the surface. The trigger, trigger housing, and magazine are not in contact with the surface.” Wakooli asked Mubiru to explain the differences between primary and secondary DNA transfer and which is more likely to be significant. “Primary DNA transfer occurs when DNA is directly transferred to an object,” Mubiru explained, adding, “My lord, the DNA transfer from primary contact is generally more significant than from secondary contact.” Mubiru was also asked to clarify his role at the crime scene, to which he responded that his responsibilities included supervising and supporting the forensic team already present. Wakooli also questioned Mubiru about the presence of blood from Molly Katanga throughout the room where the crime occurred. “You were asked about the swabs of blood from Molly. Did you know how that blood came to be in the room?” she inquired. Mubiru said he did not know how the blood came to be in the room. When further asked whether he could determine the quantity of blood present from the swabs provided to him, Mubiru replied, “No, My lord, I wouldn’t be able to determine that.” Wakooli addressed accusations from the defense that Mubiru’s report was based on “mysteries.” She asked the witness to clarify the basis of his findings. “Is it true that your report is based on mysteries, as alleged?” she questioned. Mubiru firmly denied the claim, stating that his report was grounded in data and evidence available from the analysis. On Wednesday morning, Prosecutor Wakooli resumed her re-examination of the witness. She began by asking him to explain the principles guiding the formulation of his forensic hypotheses. “My lord, I am guided by the analysis from a qualitative assessment. This assessment, my lord, informs me of the linkages between the specimens concerning the DNA profiles under examination. From this, I develop two sets of hypotheses, which must be mutually exclusive,” the witness explained. Wakooli aimed to address doubts raised during the defense’s cross-examination, particularly the suggestion that the witness might consult with the prosecution or police before conducting his analysis. She directly asked, “Do you elicit views from the prosecution or the defense before making your analysis?” The witness firmly replied, “No, my lord, I do not.” Wakooli also sought to clarify the testing process for DNA on the trigger and trigger housing, which was referenced in the DNA analysis report (Annexure 4, page 69). During the cross-examination, defense counsel Elison Karuhanga had pointed out an allele that allegedly did not match any of the accused or the deceased, suggesting possible contamination by one of the evidence collectors. Wakooli asked the witness to explain how he determined the major and minor contributors in the DNA analysis. The witness elaborated, “My lord, as mentioned earlier, after developing two sets of hypotheses, I proceed with a quantitative analysis. From this, the system provides a figure known as the likelihood ratio, which is shown on page 70. This ratio guides my opinion, indicating whether the prosecution’s hypothesis (Hp) aligns with the data better than the defense’s hypothesis (Hd). The estimates under each hypothesis on page 69 provide the contribution proportions for the three individuals of interest: Molly, Patricia, and the deceased.” He continued, “For specimen 682Y23S019, which pertains to the trigger and trigger housing, the deceased’s contribution to the DNA on this specimen is 38.687%. When compared to the DNA from the accused, Molly Katanga, her contribution is 43.1%. Based on this, the major contributor to specimen S004 is determined to be Molly Katanga, with a percentage of 43.1%.” Molly Katanga following court proceedings earlier Wakooli also asked the witness about his use of the phrase “a billion times more likely,” as the defense had suggested during cross-examination that such language was misleading and exaggerated. The witness clarified, “My Lord, in conducting the quantitative assessment, I use what is known as the likelihood ratio, derived through a method called maximum likelihood estimation. The figure referenced on page 70 exceeds a billion. This figure shapes my wording, which is capped at ‘a billion times more likely.’ This language is meant to convey which hypothesis the data supports, as reflected in my report.” Wakooli addressed a point raised during cross-examination regarding sample S017, which was a swab from the magazine of the firearm. She noted that the defense had questioned the presence of an “allele 25” that did not match any of the individuals involved in the case. Wakooli asked the witness to clarify whether any of the people of interest were detected at that location in the DNA analysis. Karuhanga objected to a line of questioning from Wakooli about an allele—specifically allele 25—identified during the DNA analysis. “My Lord, I am sorry to interrupt, but that question did not arise from the cross-examination. It is true we asked about allele 25, but we believe that this follow-up question goes beyond what was initially addressed,” Karuhanga argued. Wakooli countered, seeking clarification: “So, what did you ask about allele 25?” Karuhanga replied, “I asked the witness whose allele it was. He stated it did not belong to any of the persons of interest. I did not ask him anything about other alleles.” Judge Muwata intervened, noting, “What he is worried about is the introduction of new evidence.” Wakooli defended her approach, asserting that her question was in line with the cross-examination: “My Lord, I am not introducing new evidence. The witness mentioned that allele 25 did not belong to any of the people of interest, but the question remains: were those people of interest present at the same location, specifically at location FGA?” The judge, appearing to seek clarity, remarked, “I thought he already answered that!” Wakooli persisted, pointing out that the defense had only focused on a single location during cross-examination. “My Lord, if we recall, the defense repeatedly concentrated on only one location, despite the existence of others. At location FGA, there were several individuals apart from the one with allele 25. I want to clarify whether the individuals of interest were also present at that location.” Karuhanga said, “My Lord, that question did not arise during the cross-examination. The re-examination is limited to issues raised during the cross-examination, as per Section 137(3) of the Evidence Act. Introducing this line of questioning is outside those bounds.” Wakooli then revisited the DNA evidence involving specimen S023, a swab taken from a cartridge casing. She sought to address an earlier suggestion by the defense that the DNA analysis might have been compromised due to contamination by police officers. The witness reaffirmed that, to the best of his knowledge, no such contamination occurred. The prosecutor also revisited a defense challenge regarding the witness’s lab, which they noted was not accredited by ISO17025. When asked about this, the witness clarified: “My Lord, in my work, it is not mandatory to have ISO17025 accreditation prior to conducting an analysis. We operate under a mandate from the government and public service that established the Directorate of Forensic Services within the Uganda Police Force.” Wakooli further inquired about the source of the witness’s authority to perform forensic analysis. The witness pointed to legal backing, citing Article 212(c) of the Ugandan Constitution and public service standing orders that established his directorate. When questioned about the movement of exhibits not being detailed in his report, the witness explained, “Because it does not guide my opinion and is not part of my findings.” The discussion also touched on discrepancies between the descriptions of items in the police report and those observed by the witness, including the victim’s clothing. He clarified that he documented only what he observed and took photographs to support his findings. Regarding a prior accusation by the defense, suggesting that the witness altered evidence as alleged in the Uganda vs. Kato Kajubi case, Wakooli asked the witness to differentiate the current case circumstances. The witness responded, “In the Kajubi case, a discrepancy between police reference numbers in the post-mortem report and the evidence submission led to confusion. That situation does not apply in this case.” As the re-examination concluded, Wakooli requested the court to acknowledge a procedural issue regarding exhibits. “My Lord, while marking exhibits in court, we discovered that two—D3 and D4—had been marked but were not present. We request to have them removed from the list.” Defense counsel Kabega, referencing the witness’s previous involvement in the Kajubi case, remarked, “My Lord, this is a hangover from Mr. Mubiru on the Kajubi case.” The witness, visibly frustrated, requested a retraction. “My Lord, I request that counsel Macdusman retracts his statement.” Kabega replied, “My Lord, my friend Mr. Mubiru should have sought an apology from the Court of Appeal.” On Thursday, the prosecution presented a new witness in the Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and Others case. Naomi Nyangweso, 65, took the stand as Prosecution Witness 9. Nyangweso is the sister of the deceased, Henry Katanga, and mother to Timothy Nyangweso, Henry’s nephew. As Nyangweso was more comfortable giving her testimony in her native language, an interpreter translated her words for the court, while another interpreter assisted in translating court proceedings to George Amanyire, another accused in the case. The witness was sworn in and began by identifying the accused individuals. She pointed out Molly Katanga as the wife of the deceased and identified Patricia Kakwanzi, whom she recognized as Henry’s daughter. She also acknowledged George Amanyire as a houseboy who had worked under her employment for six years before she arranged for him to work at her brother’s residence. When asked about her brother’s character, Nyangweso described him as a peaceful individual who avoided conflict and mentioned that he was right-handed, using his right hand for daily tasks like eating and working. Nyangweso recounted the events of November 2, 2023. That morning, while she was in her apartment in Bugolobi, preparing for an appointment with her brother, she received a call from Amanyire. Justice Isaac Muwata He reported that he had heard a scuffle coming from the master bedroom. When she inquired further, he stated that there was a fight, but the call abruptly ended before he could provide more details. Concerned, Nyangweso called Patricia Kakwanzi to find out more about the situation. Kakwanzi informed her that she had not yet reached the home but was on her way there. Nyangweso then called her son Timothy, instructing him to contact another family member, Martha, to gather information. Timothy later informed her that Martha had told him Henry was resting and advised them to call back at 2 pm. However, shortly after, Amanyire called Nyangweso again with distressing news— Henry was dead. She immediately called her son to pick her up and take her to her brother’s residence in Mbuya. Nyangweso testified: “Timothy came and picked me up, and we went to Mbuya to Henry’s home. When we got there, we found a lot of people, including police officers and soldiers. I also saw Patricia and Amanyire, along with two other people I did not know.” Once at the residence, Nyangweso sought to access the rooms inside the house, but soldiers initially barred her from entering. After she explained her relationship to the deceased, another individual vouched for her, allowing her to proceed upstairs. There, she encountered two senior officers—one from the police and the other from the military. She pleaded with the officers to see her brother’s body. “They told me there were CID personnel conducting investigations,” she recalled. “I knocked, and a police officer opened the door and initially refused my entry, but I pleaded, saying he was my brother. They allowed me to see him but told me not to touch anything. I just wanted to see him.” She then described the heartbreaking moment when the police removed the bedsheet covering her brother’s body: “I saw him lying on a small mattress, wrapped in a plastic sheet.” As she spoke, her voice broke, and tears filled her eyes. “Who did you see when they uncovered the face?” Prosecutor Wakooli asked.“I saw Henry. Dead!” she responded, breaking into tears. The judge and court offered to pause the proceedings, acknowledging the difficulty of her testimony. Nyangweso insisted that she could continue, though visibly shaken. After seeing her brother’s body, she joined her son and nephews in the compound, where they questioned Amanyire about what had transpired. He maintained that he only heard the altercation while washing a vehicle outside. She stayed at the scene. Later, she followed the authorities as they transported her brother’s body to the mortuary. Nyangweso said she had multiple appointments with her brother leading up to his death. The last time she saw him was after Patricia’s wedding, which took place on a Saturday. They met the following Monday. She also recalled a previous meeting when she was in Mbarara. Henry had called her, requesting that they meet in his office to discuss a matter, but he insisted that a lawyer be present for the discussion. When she arrived, the lawyer was unavailable, and no further conversation took place. According to Nyangweso, Henry contacted her two days before his death, requesting a private meeting at a restaurant in Bugolobi. He arrived using a hired car, asking the driver to step out to ensure privacy. “He told me that Molly was trailing him and that she was dangerous,” Nyangweso testified. Henry also warned his sister not to call him on his regular phone, alleging that Molly was tapping his calls. He suggested buying her a separate phone for communication. Nyangweso recalled that Henry expressed his desire to meet with a lawyer to draft a will. When she questioned the urgency of making a will, Henry assured her they would discuss the matter in detail after his daughter Patricia’s wedding. They met again in Henry’s office on Nkrumah Road after the wedding, where he confided further fears. “He told me, ‘Molly wants to kill me, and the gang is big. I want to give you all my things,’” Nyangweso recounted. She explained that Henry had transferred personal documents to her, including land titles, bank account details, and records of people who owed him money. Their next meeting was scheduled for November 2, 2023, at 10 am., where they were supposed to finalize the drafting of the will with a lawyer. However, Nyangweso never made it to the meeting. That morning, she received a distressing call from the houseboy, George Amanyire, who informed her of Henry’s death. When asked by Prosecutor Wakooli why the meeting did not occur, Nyangweso replied with a trembling voice, “Because they killed him.” The witness detailed her efforts to get to her brother’s house in Mbuya, where she found police officers and soldiers already present. She described her emotional encounter with Henry’s body, which was lying on a small mattress. Despite her pleas, the officers initially barred her from entering the room but eventually allowed her to view the body briefly without touching anything. DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS Following the witness’s testimony, defense counsel Peter Kabatsi addressed the court, questioning the prosecution about certain items that were reportedly in the deceased’s safe. Kabatsi referenced a statement by Nyangweso from November 15, 2023, in which she indicated that the police had inventoried the contents of the safe. He requested photographs and a list of these documents, as well as any relevant police forms detailing the inventory. “We made a formal request to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on May 29 for several documents, some of which have not been provided, including this list and the photographs,” Kabatsi argued. He insisted that these items were necessary for the cross-examination to verify the witness’s claims about the contents of the safe. Prosecutor Wakooli countered Kabatsi’s request, asserting that the prosecution is only obligated to provide documents it intends to use as evidence. “These are personal documents of the deceased and not of the witness. They are not part of our evidence, and we cannot provide what we do not have,” she explained. “The defense is essentially on a fishing expedition.” Kabega argued that the documents were necessary to assess the credibility of the witness’s statements. JUDGE SEEKS CLARIFICATION ON DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY The judge intervened, asking the prosecution to clarify whether the requested documents and police forms existed. Wakooli maintained that she did not have the documents in her possession but agreed to provide a detailed response on their availability. The judge said, “You may not intend to rely on the document, but it has already been referenced, and the defense has the right to request it.” After further discussions, the prosecution conceded to provide a list of the items in question directly in court, noting that it would expedite the process. The judge accepted this resolution and adjourned the hearing until October 8, 2024. {loadposition inarticle}