Justice Isaac Muwata in court

Katanga trial: Key discrepancy in gun serial numbers raise questions on evidence handling

by · The Observer

In last week’s proceedings, the prosecution team was led by Wakooli Samali, Muwaganya Jonathan, and Anna Kiiza, with Muhumuza Ivy from Mwesigwa Rukutana and Advocates present on a watching brief.

As required by court procedure, Prosecutor Wakooli informed the presiding judge of the presence of the five accused persons: Patricia Kakwanza, Martha Nkwanzi, Charles Otai, George Amanyire, and Molly Katanga, who appeared via Zoom, dressed in a pink outfit and veil.

The accused were jointly represented by defense counsel Macdusman Kabega, Kabatsi Peter, Elison Karuhanga, Jet Tumwebaze, and Hanat Nabagala. Counsel for the defense, Macdusman Kabega, began the cross-examination of the prosecution's eighth witness, Andrew Mubiiru, Director of Forensic Services for the police.

The defense's objective was to challenge the witness's credibility and question the evidence's reliability. Kabega's questioning focused on the ruling related to the admission of a police form 17A, which had been provided to the defense without an attached exhibit by the prosecution.

In a prior hearing, the defense had applied to submit the form with the missing exhibit as evidence, alleging that it demonstrated tampering and fabrication by the witness. However, the prosecution objected to the form being tendered as a defense exhibit through the witness, arguing that the witness was not the author of the document, citing sections 22 and 20 of the Evidence Act.

The case continued as the defense sought to undermine the prosecution’s evidence by raising concerns about the authenticity and credibility of key documents and testimonies.

Defense counsel Macdusman Kabega resumed his cross-examination of the prosecution's witness, Andrew Mubiiru, Director of Forensic Services for the Uganda Police. Kabega addressed the court regarding his inquiry about the ruling on a previous issue, but the presiding judge, Justice Muwata, instructed both the defense and prosecution to proceed with the matter, leaving the ruling aside for the moment.

Kabega then applied to tender several documents as evidence for the defense, which had been referenced by the prosecution and the witness during the trial.

These included:

1. Copies of the EuroforMix software used by the witness in his forensic analysis.
2. The Crime Scene Management Procedural Manual from the Uganda Police's Directorate of Forensic Services, submitted by the witness.
3. The Uganda Police Force Directorate of Forensic Services Performance Report (2018–2023), authored by the witness.

When asked by Justice Muwata about the purpose of these documents, Kabega explained:
• The first document pertains to the DNA examination software, EuroforMix, which he claimed was outdated and prone to inaccuracies.
• The second document was intended to demonstrate non-compliance with procedural guidelines in the collection and movement of exhibits from crime scenes to the lab, highlighting potential contamination issues within the forensic laboratory.
• The third document related to the performance of the witness in his capacity as Director of Forensic Services.

In response, Prosecutor Wakooli raised several objections. She clarified to the court:

• "My Lord, it is already on record that at no point did the witness say the lab was contaminated. The terms ‘pollution’ and ‘contamination’ must be treated separately, and the record reflects this distinction."
• Wakooli further objected to the tendering of the EuroforMix software documents, stating that these were not authored by the witness. She explained that the documents were introduced during cross-examination and had been referred to as newsletters by the witness.

"The witness is not the author of these newsletters, and therefore, they cannot be tendered through him. These are simply three pieces of newsletters sourced from the internet without a proper origin," she stated.

However, Wakooli indicated no objection to the admission of the Crime Scene Management Procedural Manual and the performance report but insisted that the author of the newsletter must be brought before the court for proper verification.

Kabega argued that when questioned about the EuroforMix software, the witness had acknowledged its use, stating that it served as a repository developed by the software’s creator and was utilized during the DNA analysis. Despite this, the presiding judge ruled against the admission of the EuroforMix documents as evidence.

However, the judge permitted the defense to tender the Crime Scene Management Procedural Manual and the Uganda Police Force Directorate of Forensic Services Performance Report (2018-2023) as part of the defense’s evidence.

Following the judge’s ruling, the defense presented a series of police forms (17A) to the witness for identification. The documents were handed to the witness through a court guard, and Kabega asked the witness to confirm whether the forms had received a stamp from his department.

The witness identified the forms as PIDE05, PIDE04, PIDE03, PIDE2A, PIDE1A, PIDE1B, PIDE1C, and PIDE1D, confirming that they bore the official stamp of the Uganda Police Force Forensic Services.

Kabega then questioned the witness about the chain of custody in his department, asking whether a log or form exists to record the handling of all exhibits once they are received in the forensic lab. The witness affirmed the existence of such a log in his department but conceded that the chain of custody log was not included in his DNA report submitted to the court.

The focus remained on the sequencing and handling of forensic examinations, particularly regarding the DNA analysis and ballistics testing.
Kabega asked the witness to confirm whether the DNA examination was conducted before other forensic analyses, such as ballistics, post-mortem, and blood splatter analysis.

However, Mubiiru clarified, "I can only speak to the dates when I conducted my analysis, my lord," and could not confirm the order of the forensic processes. Kabega then inquired about the specific dates of Mubiiru’s work. Upon questioning whether the DNA report indicated when the examination was performed, the witness responded, "No, my lord, it only includes when the exhibits were received."

Kabega continued, asking the witness to confirm that DNA analysis was performed before the exhibits were handed over to ballistics. The witness agreed, stating, "Yes, the items that were submitted to ballistics were first subjected to DNA analysis."

Counsel Kabega then referred the witness to specific pages in the DNA report. On page 2, item 16, the witness confirmed the examination of a black Zastava Arms pistol, serial number UG1622200061 CZ999 compact. The witness further confirmed similar examinations on the same firearm as recorded on page 3, item 7; page 11, item 17; and page 18 of the report.

However, Kabega suggested that the pistol, marked with serial number UG1622200061 CZ999 compact, had never been given to the witness for examination. The witness denied this suggestion. At this point, Kabega introduced the Scene of Crime Officer’s (SOCO) report as part of the cross-examination, but Prosecutor Wakooli objected, stating that the SOCO had not yet testified.

Wakooli argued that referencing the contents of the SOCO's report with another witness before the officer's testimony would be prejudicial. In response, Kabega acknowledged the objection and withdrew the SOCO report, opting instead to read the relevant portions aloud. The judge also noted that if the report had been withdrawn, it could not be referred to.

Kabega then questioned Mubiiru again, asserting that the police had not submitted a request for the forensic examination of the pistol mentioned in the report. The witness firmly disagreed, stating, "My lord, that is not correct."

Kabega followed up by asking whether the witness received a request to examine the pistol through the official police form 17A. Mubiiru confirmed this, acknowledging that he had received the request on form 17A. Kabega then asked the witness to read the serial number of the gun from form 17A to match it with the gun described in the DNA report. The witness identified the exhibit marked as number 4, but the question of the specific date on the police form remained.

Kabega first directed Mubiiru to review police form 17A, asking him to read the serial number of the gun referenced in the report. The witness identified exhibit marked 4 as a "black Zastava arms pistol, serial number UG1622200061 CZ999 compact" with the police form dated 3rd November 2023.

Kabega then asked the witness to refer to his DNA report on page 2, item 16, where the serial number of the examined gun was listed as "UG1622200061 CZ999 compact." Kabega pointed out that while the DNA report stated "CZ999," the submission from the police form indicated "CZ99."

When asked if he was aware that the Zastava pistol has two versions, CZ99 and CZ999, Mubiiru responded that he was not aware. Kabega seized on this discrepancy, suggesting that the witness had examined an exhibit that had not been properly submitted, raising concerns about the accuracy of the forensic process.

He referenced a previous case, Uganda vs. Kato Kajjubi, in which Mubiiru had also served as an expert witness. In that case, it was determined by the Court of Appeal, supported by testimony from Rashid Nyanzi, that Mubiiru had examined an exhibit from a different case, which led to a precedent of mishandled evidence.

Kabega continued by questioning the witness on whether the Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) had forwarded swabs from the trigger housing of the gun for examination, as documented in police form 17A. Mubiiru refuted this, stating that the swabs were taken by him, although his report did not specify when.

The defense then shifted focus to inconsistencies in the DNA report itself. On page 17, item D7, the report described an exhibit as "a cutting from the stained part of a black, blue pair of shorts recovered from the deceased during post-mortem."

However, the post-mortem report referred to the item as "checkered boxers," creating another point of discrepancy. Additionally, the DNA report described a pair of boxers in "green, yellow, and orange" colors, which were not mentioned in the post-mortem report, further raising questions about the accuracy of the forensic examination.

Defense counsel Kabega argued that these inconsistencies demonstrated another instance where the witness had examined evidence not properly submitted or referenced in the reports. With these points raised, Kabega then shifted to a new line of questioning as the cross-examination continued.

Kabega also questioned the witness's knowledge of fingerprint analysis, asking whether he, as an expert, was familiar with the concept. The witness responded, “I cannot speak as an expert, but as a layperson.”

Kabega pressed further, insisting that as a police officer, Mubiiru should have basic knowledge of fingerprints, to which the witness eventually agreed.

Kabega proceeded to confirm with Mubiiru that every individual has unique fingerprints, even identical twins, and that if the deceased had handled the gun in question, their fingerprints should have been found on it. Mubiiru acknowledged the general assumption that contact with an object can leave fingerprints but reiterated that he could not provide expert testimony on the matter, as he is not a fingerprint specialist.

The defense then turned to the issue of whether fingerprints had been lifted from A1 (Molly Katanga). Mubiiru stated he was unaware of this. At this point, Kabega presented documents to the witness, which the witness identified as a statement from Detective Sergeant Beteise. Kabega asked whether the witness knew the officer, to which Mubiiru responded, "No."

Prosecutor Wakooli objected to this line of questioning, noting that Detective Sergeant Beteise had not yet testified, and reading her statement at this time could prejudice the court. Kabega, however, insisted on completing his questioning, stating, “My learned sister should allow me to finish; she can object after I’ve made my point.”

Referring to the officer’s statement, Kabega pointed out that blood swabs, fingerprints, bed sheets, mopping rags, and clothes had been collected for analysis. He then asked Mubiiru whether the police had provided him with lifted fingerprints for examination. Mubiiru replied, “No, my lord.”

Kabega suggested that the reason police did not provide the witness with the fingerprints was because the results might indicate that the accused had not handled the weapon.

The witness refuted this, stating, "My lord, they were given to me because I am a DNA expert."
Kabega then inquired which department handles fingerprint examination, to which Mubiiru responded, “The Criminal Identification Department.” Kabega asked whether this department was under Mubiiru's supervision, and the witness confirmed that it was. Kabega pressed further, asking if, as the head of the department, Mubiiru had any knowledge of fingerprint examination findings being forwarded to him. Mubiiru answered that he had no such knowledge.

The defense counsel then shifted focus to the examination of batons, identified as exhibit 19, which had been presented earlier as evidence. Kabega described the batons as “deadly” and “lethal,” in contrast to the judge’s inquiry about whether they were standard police batons carried by unarmed officers.

According to the DNA report, the batons had no visible stains, and the deceased was identified as the major DNA contributor. As a result, the batons were disregarded in the analysis.

Kabega challenged this decision, arguing, “These are assault instruments recovered from the crime scene, and they show evidence that someone was badly beaten. You’re telling this court that because some of them had no visible stains, you deliberately left them out, possibly concealing evidence that the accused was brutally beaten.”

Related Stories