10 witnesses, many doubts: Defense shakes prosecution in Katanga trial

by · The Observer

The high-profile trial of Molly Katanga has unfolded with intense courtroom exchanges and startling revelations that call into question the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the handling of evidence.

Before the trial broke off on October 18, defense attorneys had systematically challenged the testimony of each witness, exposing contradictions, procedural missteps, and investigative errors that could ultimately weaken the prosecution’s case.

The defense’s strategy of probing these contradictions raises questions not only about individual witness reliability but also about investigative rigour and the handling of evidence in high-stakes trials. As the trial resumes on November 5, the defense appears poised to dismantle the foundations of the prosecution’s arguments

WITNESS TESTIMONIES UNDER FIRE 

The credibility of prosecution witnesses has been central to the defense’s strategy, with each cross-examination revealing inconsistencies that raise significant doubt. Notably, Naome Nyangweso, the ninth prosecution witness and stepsister of the deceased, Henry Katanga, faced rigorous questioning by defense attorney Jet Tumwebaze.

Nyangweso’s testimony included claims that she had recorded her police statements in Runyankore due to her limited grasp of English, yet Tumwebaze argued that her statements were initially documented in English, a discrepancy that highlights potential translation issues. Tumwebaze pressed Nyangweso on her proficiency in English, suggesting that her choice of language in court was a tactic to delay cross-examination.

In a pointed exchange, Tumwebaze questioned her capacity as the Local Council 1 chairperson, a role requiring written communication in English.

“Is it fair to say that your use of Runyankore is to slow down the cross-examination?” Tumwebaze asked, challenging the witness’s integrity and implying calculated obstruction. Language barriers in courtrooms have often led to procedural delays, but the defense’s accusation here raises deeper questions about transparency and the fair administration of justice.

DISCREPANCIES IN STATEMENTS AND SIGNATURES

Further, Tumwebaze scrutinized the three police statements given by Nyangweso, all reportedly signed by her, yet each had different signatures. Tumwebaze questioned the authenticity of the signatures, casting doubt on whether all three statements were indeed her own.

Additionally, he pointed out that the statements listed different names for Nyangweso’s father, inconsistencies that prompted the defense to suggest she may have provided false information under oath in previous legal proceedings.

One of the most explosive moments came when Tumwebaze highlighted omissions in Nyangweso’s police statements concerning a claim made in her examination-in-chief: that Henry had warned her of an alleged threat to his life from his wife, Molly. Although Nyangweso testified in court that Henry confided his fears to her, this crucial piece of information was missing from all three of her recorded statements.

“You didn’t mention that he said Molly Katanga wanted to kill him, as you testified earlier,” Tumwebaze remarked.

The omission prompted the presiding judge, Justice Isaac Muwata, to intervene and seek clarification. However, Nyangweso deflected, responding that Henry had called Molly “very dangerous.”

Her refusal to examine her previous statements to verify this discrepancy, further cast doubt on her reliability as a witness.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN QUESTION

The defense’s scrutiny extended beyond witness testimonies, delving into the forensic evidence presented by the prosecution. Police forensic expert Andrew Mubiru, who had examined the alleged murder weapon, was confronted with accusations of analyzing the wrong firearm.

Defense attorney MacDosman Kabega argued that Mubiru’s analysis may have involved a pistol with a serial number unrelated to the case at hand. Despite Mubiru’s assertion that he analyzed only what was submitted to him, Kabega questioned the integrity of the evidence collection process, and highlighted inconsistencies in handling the exhibits, pointing to potential gaps in forensic protocols.

Kabega also noted the outdated software used in the analysis, which he argued compromised the validity of the forensic findings. Additionally, he suggested that certain exhibits, such as blood samples allegedly found throughout the scene, were selectively omitted to construct a narrative against Ms. Katanga.

By casting doubt on the thoroughness of forensic procedures, the defense has opened a debate on the reliability of the prosecution’s physical evidence, further weakening its case.

OTHER WITNESSES FAIL TO CONNECT

The prosecution’s witness lineup suffered further setbacks when additional testimonies failed to strengthen their case against Molly. Ronald Ruranga, a self-described lawyer, was revealed to lack a practising certificate, undermining his credibility. When questioned about his legal credentials, Ruranga was unable to produce documents confirming his status, leaving his testimony vulnerable to challenge.

POLICE OFFICER CHANGES STATEMENT ON KEY DETAILS

One of the central moments in court came with the testimony of Peter Ogwang, a police officer attached to Bugolobi police station, who was among the first on the scene of Katanga’s death. Ogwang’s initial statement, made two days after the incident, provided an account of his arrival at the scene and his interactions with individuals present.

During this statement, he recalled being informed of a suspected suicide by shooting through a phone call from Dr Charles Otai, as well as observing evidence such as a pistol and blood in the room. However, during cross-examination, defense lawyer Kabega uncovered notable gaps in Ogwang’s original testimony.

Although Owang had previously stated that Patricia, a witness at the scene, suggested reporting the incident as an accident, this crucial detail was absent from his initial statement. When pressed to explain the omission, Ogwang admitted he “might have forgotten” to include it, a response that raised questions about the thoroughness of his documentation.

Kabega further noted that Ogwang’s statement neglected to mention the presence of Martha, another key individual, at the scene. These omissions, according to the defense, undermine the accuracy of Ogwang’s account and cast doubt on the reliability of critical information collected in the case’s early stages.

The significance of these omissions extends beyond simple human error. Defense counsel argued that lapses like these could suggest procedural issues in documenting crime scenes, potentially affecting the integrity of evidence. Ogwang’s revised testimony invites concerns about whether investigative protocols were adequately followed, raising broader questions about the consistency and reliability of police procedures in such serious cases.

FAMILY MEMBER’S TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED BY PHONE RECORDS

Further complicating the prosecution’s case was the testimony of Timothy Nyangweso, a nephew of the deceased. Nyangweso, a presenter with the Uganda Broadcasting Corporation and a church minister, stated that he had contacted Martha, Katanga’s daughter, on November 2, 2023, and learned of her father’s death through this conversation.

However, in an incisive cross-examination, Kabega introduced a call data list that showed no record of any such call on the date Nyangweso specified. This contradiction called into question the accuracy of Timothy Nyangweso’s account. The absence of a documented call implies either a lapse in memory or, as the defense suggested, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent facts.

The discrepancy presents a significant challenge to the prosecution’s narrative, as it casts doubt on a family member’s reliability and the credibility of one of the few personal accounts connecting Martha to events following her father’s death. By challenging the authenticity of Nyangweso’s statements, the defense has raised concerns over the quality of the evidence upon which the prosecution’s case is built.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF THE INCIDENT’S INITIAL REPORT

The inconsistencies in witness testimonies continued with another layer of complexity, as ASP Samuel Musede, a police officer attached to Jinja Road police division, took the stand. Musede testified that he had been contacted by Patricia, a daughter of the deceased, who reported the death as a possible suicide.

Musede’s account, however, conflicted with Ogwang’s earlier statement suggesting that Patricia wanted the incident documented as an accident, creating an ambiguity around the circumstances of Katanga’s death and how it was initially reported. This lack of alignment between police witnesses presents a challenge to the pros- ecution’s case.

Defense counsel Kabega underscored that inconsistent statements, especially from law enforcement personnel, could indicate lapses in evidence gathering and documentation. Such discrepancies, Kabega argued, could weaken the prosecution’s case by introducing doubt about the reliability of information presented to the court, especially regarding the initial understanding of the incident as a suicide or accident.

THE LARGER IMPLICATIONS

The Katanga trial has brought into focus a range of judicial and procedural concerns, from translation and record-keeping accuracy to forensic standards. The defense’s ability to expose inconsistencies and potential investigative errors has raised broader questions about the standards applied in gathering evidence and presenting witness testimonies.

Language issues, which surfaced repeatedly in Nyangweso’s cross-examination, underscore the importance of accurate translations in ensuring fair proceedings, especially in cases involving witnesses who may not be fluent in English.

Additionally, the handling of forensic evidence in this case reveals systemic issues within Uganda’s investigative procedures. Defense arguments regarding outdated software, missing exhibits, and questionable evidence chain-of-custody practices highlight the need for more stringent forensic standards and transparency in handling evidence.

The defense’s focus on these points not only benefits their client but also draws public attention to gaps in the judicial system that, if unaddressed, could compromise the integrity of future cases. As the Katanga trial continues, the presiding judge will need to consider these procedural irregularities and witness credibility issues.

With the defense systematically chipping away at the prosecution’s case, the likelihood of a conviction appears increasingly uncertain. This trial has become more than a case of alleged murder; it is now a critical examination of Uganda’s judicial standards and the robustness of its investigative processes.

The outcome of this case will likely influence public confidence in the legal system, as the public watches to see how the court addresses these challenges to witness credibility, evidence handling, and procedural transparency.

Related Stories