Murder trial: Katanga’s sister labeled a liar in court

by · The Observer
Noame Nyangweso

During last week’s court sessions in the case of Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and four others, the defense team continued its cross-examination of the prosecution’s ninth witness, Noame Nyangweso, sister to the deceased businessman, Henry Katanga.

The cross-examination, led by Counsel Jet Tumwebaze, focused on alleged irregularities in Nyangweso’s earlier testimony. Tumwebaze began by questioning the witness about her communication with the deceased. Although Nyangweso had claimed that she regularly spoke with her brother, a two-month-long call log provided in court showed only one conversation on October 27, 2023.

In response, Nyangweso stated that she frequently communicated with the deceased through WhatsApp, using his MTN line. However, Tumwebaze contested this claim, pointing out that none of her three police statements mentioned the use of WhatsApp for communication with the deceased.

“In your three police statements covering 60 days, you never revealed that you had any WhatsApp conversations between the two of you using that number,” Tumwebaze argued.

He noted that Nyangweso had only listed an Airtel line as the deceased’s WhatsApp number, but failed to mention any secret communication lines in her police statements.

“I put it to you that the reason you didn’t reveal these numbers to the police is because they don’t exist,” Tumwebaze asserted.

The cross-examination then shifted to a phone call that Nyangweso had with the deceased on October 27, 2023, the day before the wedding of their niece, Patricia Kankwazi. Tumwebaze suggested that the sole purpose of this call was for the deceased to inform Nyangweso that she would not be fulfilling the traditional role of “ssenga” (paternal aunt) at the wedding.

KINYANKORE CULTURE

“You know the central role that the ssenga plays at a niece’s wedding in Kinyankore culture?” Tumwebaze asked.
“My lord, I will not answer that one,” the witness responded.
“You don’t have a choice. When you take an oath, you are the property of the court,” Tumwebaze replied, pressing the witness to answer.

He further explained that the role of the paternal aunt in Kinyankore culture includes bringing a milk pot to the newlyweds the day after the wedding and formally handing over the bride to her new family. Tumwebazze argued that as the late Henry Katanga’s only surviving sister, this responsibility should have fallen to Nyangweso.

The presiding judge sought clarification, asking, “Are you the only surviving sister?” “Yes, my lord, but they chose someone else. I could not force myself there,” Nyangweso replied.

Tumwebaze asserted that the deceased, Katanga, had deliberately chosen their cousin, Lydia Kabirisi, over Nyangweso for a key traditional role at their niece’s wedding, because he did not trust her with family matters or secrets, as she had previously claimed.

“You didn’t play this important role two years earlier at Martha’s wedding either,” Tumwebaze pointed out, suggesting a pattern of exclusion.

The defense further argued that the only reason Katanga had called Nyangweso on October 27, 2023, was to inform her that she would not be participating in the traditional aunt’s role (Ssenga) at the wedding, rather than to discuss matters of his safety, as she had testified.

“Your brother hadn’t called you for two months, and the reason he called on the 27th was to relieve you of your duties, not to discuss his estate,” Tumwebaze continued.

However, Nyangweso maintained that it was Molly Katanga, the widow, who had chosen their cousin for the role, not Henry. Tumwebaze further argued that Nyangweso’s behaviour after her brother’s death, especially towards his widow and children, demonstrated why Katanga had not entrusted her with the role of Ssenga.

Additionally, Tumwebaze disputed Nyangweso’s claim that her brother was having serious conflicts with his wife, pointing to phone records that indicated the couple communicated frequently—an average of three times a day—whereas Nyangweso had barely spoken to her brother, according to the same records.

The defense also questioned why Nyangweso, despite being a village council chairperson for six years, had not reported her allegations that Molly Katanga was planning to kill her husband.

“The reason you never reported these allegations is because Henry Katanga never mentioned anything about his wife wanting to kill him,” Tumwebaze said.

He added that even if Katanga had made such claims, Nyangweso did not take them seriously, as evidenced by her lack of action.

“If your brother tells you that his life is in danger, is it natural that you do absolutely nothing?” Tumwebaze asked. Nyangweso responded by insisting that she trusted and believed her brother and that they were in the process of hiring a lawyer.

The cross-examination then turned to Nyangweso’s claims that Katanga had been tracked before his death. Tumwebaze questioned whether the witness had found any evidence supporting this claim.

“I don’t know, my Lord, because I’m not investigating someone who is already dead,” Nyangweso replied.

Tumwebaze asserted that there was no evidence to support her claim of tracking. Tumwebaze then challenged Nyangweso’s testimony regarding an alleged meeting with Katanga on October 30, 2023, during which she claimed her brother gave her a small safe containing important documents.

The defense noted that neither the police nor the court had seen photographs or an inventory of the items in the safe, even though Nyangweso had disclosed these details to the police in her second statement, dated November 15, 2023. The defense further scrutinized Nyangweso’s claim that the deceased purchased a safe at Nasser (road in Kampala) and had an Uber driver deliver it to her home in Bugolobi.

Tumwebaze questioned the plausibility of Nyangweso allowing a stranger, such as the Uber driver, to carry a safe containing valuable documents into her home.

“You want to tell this court that you let a stranger Noame Nyangweso carry a safe with your brother’s important documents?” Tumwebaze asked.

Nyangweso responded, “My maid was at home. The safe was received at the doorway, and I was watching from the car.”

Additionally, Tumwebaze pointed out that phone records showed Katanga was not near Bugolobi on the day in question, further challenging Nyangweso’s account.

“There was no conversation between you and Henry Katanga, and you never met at all. I put it to you that you are not being truthful about what really happened that day,” Tumwebaze said.

The defense concluded by asserting that the documents Nyangweso claimed were given to her by Katanga had been retrieved from his office during a police search after his death on November 3, 2023. Tumwebaze highlighted similarities between the items listed on the police search certificate and those Nyangweso claimed to have received from her brother, including two land titles, a notebook, and bank documents.

Nyangweso, however, denied these allegations. Tumwebaze then alleged that the documents Nyangweso claimed to have received from her brother were, in fact, retrieved from his office by police after his death on November 3, 2023. He pointed to similarities between the items listed in the police search certificate and those Nyangweso had testified about, including two land titles and a notebook. Nyangweso denied this, stating that the documents had indeed been given to her by her brother.

One of the police officers who conducted the search at Katanga’s office had previously testified that he did not sign the search certificate because he had to leave for prayers being held in honor of the deceased. Tumwebaze seized upon this testimony, suggesting that while prayers were being conducted, Nyangweso was in her brother’s office searching for documents and money.

The witness, clearly upset, responded, “My lord, I need to be respected. I am not a thief.”

Prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya objected to Tumwebaze’s line of questioning, accusing him of insulting the witness. Nyangweso clarified that she had attended the prayers and even delivered a speech at her brother’s vigil. The cross-examination then touched on a separate burial ceremony held by Nyangweso at her mother’s home in Kashaari country, while her brother was laid to rest in Nyabushozi County.

Tumwebaze questioned statements Nyangweso made at that ceremony, where she reportedly claimed that Katanga could not have shot himself because he was right-handed and had been shot from the left side. She also claimed to have seen two bullet wounds on his body—one on the head and one on the thigh—during a viewing at the mortuary. Tumwebaze asserted that these statements were fabricated to support the theory that Katanga had not committed suicide.

“You came up with these lies to create false evidence against Molly Katanga,” Tumwebaze said. He then asked the witness, “If it can be shown that the bullet entered through the right side, would you still say suicide is not ruled out?”

Muwaganya objected, arguing that the witness could not be asked hypothetical questions, as she was a witness of fact. Finally, Tumwebaze suggested that suicide should not be ruled out, pointing out that another of Nyangweso’s brothers, Ntomi, had also died by suicide.

“There is a history of suicide in your family, and Henry’s death didn’t surprise you,” he said, further alleging that Nyangweso had confided in someone that her brother Henry was suicidal, similar to Ntomi. Visibly emotional, Nyangweso responded, “It’s not true, my lord. No one has ever killed themselves in our family.”

WEDNESDAY

During last Wednesday’s court, defense counsel Jet Tumwebaze introduced a contentious line of cross-examination, suggesting that witness Noame Nyangweso had attempted to coerce witness George Amanyire into changing his testimony about the events of November 2, 2023, when businessman Henry Katanga died.

Tumwebaze alleged that Nyangweso, alongside senior counsel Mwesigwa Rukutana, Assistant Inspector of Police Wilber Tworekire, and lawyer Lesta Kaganzi, visited Amanyire at Kigo prison on February 6, 2024, to pressure him into falsely implicating Molly Katanga in her husband’s death.

According to the defense, Amanyire had informed them that Nyangweso offered to help secure his release if he agreed to change his story. However, prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya quickly objected, accusing the defense of attempting to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial information.

“Our brother is playing a very dangerous game. My lord, we don’t want to go there,” Muwaganya said, leading to a heated exchange between the prosecution and defense teams.

Tumwebaze persisted, stating that the defense had obtained a court order from Kajjansi magistrate’s court, along with a letter from the commissioner general of Prisons, which documented Nyangweso and the others’ visit to Amanyire. He argued that the records showed the group entered Kigo prison at nearly the same time, suggesting they coordinated their visit.

Despite these allegations, Nyangweso denied the claims, stating that she had gone to the prison to visit someone else, not Amanyire. Tumwebaze pressed further, accusing Nyangweso of offering Amanyire freedom if he changed his testimony to implicate Molly Katanga, but the witness continued to deny the accusations.

According to the defense, Amanyire’s original account was that he heard Molly screaming on the night of November 2 and went to check on the situation. When he knocked on the master bedroom door, Henry responded and told him to go away, after which the beatings and screams continued.

Amanyire allegedly then woke up another household member, Denise Nayebare, to call Katanga’s daughters. Shortly afterward, the daughters arrived and took their mother, Molly, who was reportedly naked and crawling, to the hospital. Tumwebaze claimed that Amanyire had consistently told this version of events, which included his belief that Henry Katanga had beaten his wife before taking his own life.

However, according to the defense’s narrative, Nyangweso had allegedly pressured Amanyire to alter his story, threatening that he would “rot in jail” if he didn’t comply.

The defense further alleged that, two days after Nyangweso’s visit, a group that included prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya and Assistant Commissioner of Police Lydia Watono visited Amanyire to take his revised statement. At this point, Muwaganya objected to the line of questioning, accusing the defense of engaging in “blackmail” and stating that it was inappropriate to cross-examine Nyangweso on documents or events she had no direct knowledge of.

“He is asking the witness to read a document without establishing whether the witness authored the information from which she is being questioned,” Muwaganya said. He emphasized that the defense should present the actual authors of the prison documents to provide credible evidence, rather than relying on hearsay.

Muwaganya concluded by stating that while they had not objected to documents where Nyangweso’s name appeared; it was inappropriate to cross-examine her on matters related to individuals or events she was not personally involved in.

Tensions escalated as prosecution and defense teams clashed over the admissibility of certain documents. Prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya raised concerns regarding allegations that his name, along with others, had been “sneaked” into a visitors’ book at Kigo Prison, accusing the defense of using this tactic to blackmail the prosecution.

He also expressed dismay at defense counsel Jet Tumwebaze for allegedly discussing the trial with the media, describing it as an act of sub judice.

“This is a serious matter,” Muwaganya stated. “He [Tumwebaze] pays the media to feed his ego. My name has been included on some pages so that he can massage his ego. We know how this was drafted. If he intends to use that line, he should ask the real people, not the witness.”

Muwaganya further noted that the witness, Noame Nyangweso, had not authored the documents being questioned, arguing that the defense was attempting to have the witness acknowledge information she had no involvement in.

“They are asking the witness to read and acknowledge the document just to feed their egos,” he remarked.

The presiding judge intervened to de-escalate the situation, urging both sides to maintain professionalism.

“We should limit attacks, even if we are on opposite sides. We are all lawyers, and I don’t think anyone is trying to mislead the court. All these things will be looked into.”

In response, defense lawyer Elison Karuhanga objected to the prosecution’s claims, stating that the witness was being legitimately cross examined on a document she had signed. He refuted the accusations of blackmail, suggesting that Muwaganya should address any concerns about the visitors’ book with the prison authorities.

“If my learned friend has any objections about how his name came to be on a prison book, it’s an issue he should check with the prison authorities,” Karuhanga said.

Tumwebaze, continuing his cross-examination, alleged that Nyangweso had coerced George Amanyire, a key witness, into testifying falsely against Molly Katanga.

“Had he accepted your coercion, he would be a free man today,” Tumwebaze argued, suggesting that Amanyire’s current charges were a result of his refusal to comply.

Tumwebaze also introduced photographs of Molly Katanga’s injuries, showing deep wounds and scars. He challenged the witness’s earlier testimony, asserting that only Henry Katanga could have inflicted such wounds and that the evidence indicated Henry himself may have pulled the trigger. Additionally, he accused the witness of mobilizing public sentiment against the accused by leading media campaigns and distributing T-shirts bearing accusations against Molly.

“You printed T-shirts claiming A1 [Molly Katanga] is a murderer, distributed them to market vendors, and protested at court,” Tumwebaze said.

Nyangweso denied the allegations. Tumwebaze then sought to admit into evidence an application letter, a court order, and documents from the Uganda Prisons Service showing records of visitors to Amanyire. The prosecution strongly objected, with Muwaganya questioning the legitimacy of the application letter, noting that it did not specify which advocate moved the magistrate’s court to grant the order.

“We only see a law firm as the applicant, but there is no advocate named, and the court order does not indicate the judicial officer who made the ruling,” Muwaganya argued.

Muwaganya also objected to the inclusion of the visitor records, pointing out that the witness had no prior knowledge of these documents and thus they could not be tendered as defense exhibits. In defense, Karuhanga argued that the court order from Kajjansi Magistrate’s court was signed and sealed, thereby meeting the necessary qualifications for authenticity.

He maintained that the documents related directly to the witness’s visit to Amanyire and were admissible. The session was adjourned with the judge promising to deliver a ruling on the admissibility of the contested documents. The court session last Thursday commenced with the judge delivering his ruling on the defense’s submission of exhibits.

Addressing the issue that the court order was not signed by a judicial officer, the judge clarified that it had indeed been signed by the Chief Magistrate of Kajjansi Chief Magistrate’s court. While the name was not included in the order, the judge ruled that this did not invalidate it.

“The order was acted upon by the prison authorities, and this court cannot now declare it unfit for the purpose for which it was issued,” he said.

Regarding the letters from the prison authorities referring to visits made to George Amanyire, the judge noted that the witness had admitted to signing the visitors’ book. He concluded that the records of these visits, having been provided by the prison authorities in response to a court order, were public documents under section 73 of the Evidence Act.

“The signed documents can be admitted as they pertain to the visits to Amanyire and have been properly brought before this court as defense exhibits,” the judge stated.

After the exhibits were accepted, the defense resumed cross-examining the witness, with counsel Macdosman Kabega leading. Kabega questioned the witness’s claim that the deceased, Henry Katanga, had discussed with her his intention to write a will. He referred to the police statement made by Katanga’s lawyer, Ronald Mugabe Luranga, on November 26, 2023, which stated that Katanga had already made a will in 2018.

Kabega challenged the witness, suggesting that she was not as close to Katanga as she claimed. Kabega also pressed the witness about the alleged “dangerous gang” that Katanga had reportedly mentioned to her, questioning why she had never revealed their names. The witness responded that she could not name them in court, leading Kabega to retort, “We are talking about a group that allegedly wanted to kill your brother. Why do you want to protect them?”

Turning to the documents the witness claimed Katanga had given her, Kabega suggested that they might include land titles belonging to Katanga and his wife, Molly. When asked to present the documents to the court, the witness stated, “I will have to consult my lawyer before I produce them.”

Kabega then sought a court order for the witness to bring the documents, prompting an objection from prosecution lawyer Samali Wakooli, who argued that the trial was about murder, not the administration of Katanga’s estate.

“The documents were given to her in trust, and they should only be brought to a court handling an administration cause of the estate,” Wakooli stated.

Despite Wakooli’s objection, Kabega pressed on, suggesting that the documents, including a notebook, could contain information about individuals to whom Katanga had lent money. The witness responded that such matters would be settled “when the time comes.” Kabega further questioned the witness’s claim that Katanga believed his wife wanted to kill him, pointing out that the couple continued to buy joint properties.

He suggested that Katanga and his wife were living harmoniously and that the assumption that Molly wanted to kill him was false. Kabega also implied that the witness was keeping the documents because she wanted to claim Katanga’s estate.

“You want to grab their land, and that’s why you are scheming to keep A1 in prison as long as possible,” he said, though the witness denied these accusations.

The defense concluded its cross-examination of the witness by attempting to tender photos of her taken during demonstrations demanding justice for her brother’s death. This move was strongly opposed by Wakooli, who argued that since the witness was not the source of the photos, they could not be admitted through her.

“It’s not fair to tender them through her, my lord,” Wakooli stated. Despite the defense’s insistence that the witness had confirmed her presence in the photos, the judge ruled that the photos could not be admitted as defense exhibits.

In the re-examination session, prosecution lawyer Samali Wakooli sought to clarify several points raised during the cross-examination. Wakooli began by asking the witness to explain her reference to different paternal figures during her testimony. The witness clarified that although she referred to Arthur Katanga as her father, he is in fact her paternal uncle.

She explained that she considers him her father because he raised her after her biological father passed away when she was just three years old. Wakooli then addressed the defense’s claim that the witness harboured an interest in the deceased’s property. The witness firmly denied any such interest, stating that while the deceased had left her some belongings, none of them were of personal interest to her.

The prosecution also sought to clarify discrepancies between the witness’s testimony and her three police statements. The witness explained that certain details were omitted in her police statements due to issues with translation.

Wakooli next asked the witness to clarify the mention of “secret numbers” she had used to communicate with the deceased. When the witness read the numbers aloud, defense lawyer Peter Kabatsi objected, stating that these numbers had not been introduced during either her evidence-in-chief or the cross- examination.

“The number was never said in her evidence-in-chief and not during cross-examination,” Kabatsi remarked. Despite Kabatsi’s objection, Wakooli insisted that the witness was simply clarifying an issue that had come up during the proceedings.

Related Stories