KAMPALA – As the highly publicised Katanga trial takes a break after sessions lasting nearly two weeks, the defence lawyers have highlighted potential investigative errors, and successfully challenged the credibility of all 10 prosecution witnesses.
Witnesses have offered contradicting testimonies while forensic experts have clashed over evidence interpretation, raising significant doubts about the prosecution’s ability to secure a conviction.
The prosecution has so far presented 10 witnesses attempting to implicate Molly Katanga in her husband’s death. However, her defence team has systematically challenged the evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
The Katanga trial resumed on October 15, 2024, with the defence’s cross-examination of Naome Nyangweso, the step-sister of the deceased and the ninth prosecution witness.
Defence attorney Peter Kabatsi informed presiding Justice Isaac Muwata that despite not receiving all requested documents from the prosecution, the defence was ready to proceed with the cross-examination.
Language issues resurfaced during Nyangweso’s cross-examination.
Nyangweso faced intense scrutiny during cross-examination, with another defence counsel Jet Tumwebaze highlighting inconsistencies in her testimony.
Nyangweso claimed her three police statements, recorded on November 2 and 15, 2023, and January 8, 2024, were translated from Runyankore to English. However, Tumwebaze disputed this, asserting the statements were originally recorded in English. “It’s fair to say, Mrs. Nyangweso, that you know and speak English,” he argued.
Nyangweso denied the assertion, citing her limited English fluency as the reason for recording statements in Runyankore and testifying in her native language. Tumwebaze pressed on, questioning how she managed her role as Local Council 1 chairperson of Bugolobi, which requires writing letters in English.
Defence attorney Jet Tumwebaze accused Naome Nyangweso of using her native Runyankore language to impede the cross-examination process.
“Is it fair to say that your use of Runyankore is to slow down the cross-examination?” Tumwebaze asked. “My lord, I am putting it to her that she chose it to slow down. She should just say yes or no,” Tumwebaze argued.
Lawyers also found out that Nyangweso’s statement was recorded in a bar, specifically at a location called “Banana Bar and Bistro” at 9 pm.
Tumwebaze raised concerns over inconsistencies in the three police statements recorded by the witness.
Tumwebaze questioned why the signatures on the three statements appeared different, despite Nyangweso claiming they were all hers.
“Your signatures on the three statements are all different, and you told the court that your name is Naomi Nyangweso, not Natukunda,” Tumwebaze remarked.
The defence also accused Nyangweso of having an ulterior motive in recording her third statement.
Tumwebaze suggested that by the time Nyangweso made the statement, Molly Katanga and the other four accused had already been charged, and the witness was aware that her statement would be used as evidence in the case.
“All the accused persons were already charged, and you knew that your statements would be used as evidence in this case,” Tumwebaze asserted.
The cross-examination also delved into claims made by Nyangweso during her examination-in-chief, where she testified that her brother, the late Henry Katanga, had warned her that his wife, Molly Katanga, wanted to kill him. Tumwebaze pointed out that this significant claim was not included in any of the three statements Nyangweso had recorded with the police.
“In your evidence-in-chief, you said you met Henry Katanga and that when you entered his office, he closed the door and told you that A1 (Molly Katanga) wanted to kill him,” Tumwebaze noted, continuing, “Look at your statement from November 2—did you state that A1 wanted to kill him?”
Nyangweso responded that Henry had told her Molly was “very dangerous” but did not directly mention the threat to his life in her statements. Seeking clarity, the presiding judge asked the witness whether she had included Henry’s exact words in her statement about Molly wanting to kill him.
Nyangweso reiterated, “He said she was dangerous and warned me to keep quiet.” Tumwebaze, however, challenged the witness, questioning why this vital information was omitted from all her statements. “Look at the one from November 15 and the one from January 8th, 2024—you didn’t mention that he said Molly Katanga wanted to kill him, as you testified earlier,” Tumwebaze argued, as the statements were passed to the witness for review.
Nyangweso, however, refused to examine the documents, stating, “I can’t read, my lord.” Tumwebaze continued to challenge the credibility of her statements regarding the murder of her brother, Henry Katanga. Tumwebaze questioned why Nyangweso had not included a specific allegation in her police statements that Molly Katanga, Henry’s wife, intended to kill him, despite Nyangweso claiming this during her testimony.
When asked if she had ever recorded a fourth statement to explicitly state that Henry said his wife wanted to kill him, Nyangweso admitted that she had not. Tumwebaze pressed, “I put it to you that you had all the time to include that statement if, in fact, your brother said that Molly wanted to kill him.”
Tumwebaze highlighted discrepancies in her statements regarding her father’s identity, with two different names — Edwin Katanga and Arthur Katanga — recorded in police statements.
Tumwebaze accused Nyangweso of lying under oath about being Arthur Katanga’s daughter in a past civil suit. He also questioned her delayed arrival at the crime scene, despite living nearby.
The defence counsel pressed Nyangweso about her role as Local Council 1 chairperson of Bugolobi, suggesting she failed to inform police about the distress call. Tumwebaze also accused Nyangweso of betraying her nieces, Patricia and Martha Katanga, by testifying against them.
Tumwebaze challenged Nyangweso’s account of meetings with Henry Katanga before his death, claiming a key meeting on October 24, 2023, never occurred. Nyangweso denied the accusations, insisting she told the truth.
Naome Nyangweso faced further intense cross-examination over her claims that Henry Katanga called her before, during, and after the kuhingira. Defense attorney disputed her testimony, stating that Katanga never called her and that her claims were fabricated.
Tumwebaze presented phone records showing no communication between Nyangweso and Katanga over a two-month period. Nyangweso insisted they used other numbers, including WhatsApp calls, but Tumwebaze pointed out that these numbers were not recorded in her statements.
Police forensic expert fumbles
Previously, defence lawyers also cast serious doubts on the authenticity of forensic evidence analysed by police expert Andrew Mubiru.
The defence attorneys cross-examining Mr Mubiru pointed to discrepancies in forensic evidence and suggested it could have been the wrong gun analysed.
Police forensic expert Mr. Mubiru faced intense scrutiny during cross-examination, with defense attorney MacDusman Kabega accusing him of examining a gun from a different case, not the alleged murder weapon.
Kabega presented evidence suggesting Mubiru analyzed a pistol with a different serial number, contradicting the prosecution’s claims. Mubiru maintained he only examined what was submitted to him.
Kabega questioned Mubiru’s analysis, highlighting inconsistencies in the evidence collection process. Kabega also suggested that exhibits were deliberately left out of analysis to conceal evidence of Ms. Molly Katanga’s alleged assault.
The court was shown disturbing exhibits, including three wooden sticks, a baton, and a pistol. Mubiru confirmed Molly’s blood was found throughout the bedroom, bathroom, and balcony. Kabega presented outdated software used in Mubiru’s analysis and requested these exhibits be admitted as evidence to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
Defence lawyers poke holes into lawyer’s testimony
Earlier in the trial, another key witness, Mugabe Ronald Ruranga, a self-proclaimed lawyer and businessman, was exposed as not having a legal practicing certificate, despite having handled important legal documents for the late Henry Katanga.
Ruranga’s credentials were called into question during cross-examination, and he was unable to produce any documents to support his claims of being a licensed lawyer.
Backstreet phone technician says he doesn’t know any of the accused
To compound prosecution’s misery, another witness confirmed under cross examination that he didn’t know any of the accused. On Friday, July 27-year-old phone technician Pierre Kajura, testified that he only knew the late Henry Katanga and had helped him set passwords on his phone. The witness, who was led by prosecution counsel Anna Kizza, revealed that he met Katanga in 2017 and had a business relationship with him. The defence team, having found his testimony not connecting, decided they did want to cross-examine him.
Police doctor disowns evidence
On July 9, 2024, the prosecution called its first witness, Dr. Julius Muhwezi, a police officer attached to the Police Directorate of Health Services in Nsambya.
Dr. Julius Muhwezi testified in the high-profile Katanga trial, distancing himself from a police form presented as evidence.
He told the court that the form had been tampered with and did not reflect his true findings.
“I can only own part B of the form. I didn’t sign the first half,” Dr. Muhwezi stated, claiming that his signature and stamp on the second half had been altered. “Where I signed was changed. What appears like 13th is not mine.”
The defence counsel, Elison Karuhanga, suggested that Dr. Muhwezi did not examine the suspects, and the form was fabricated as evidence.
Dr. Muhwezi denied this, stating, “I took an oath, I examined these people. But the signature and stamp that appear on the form are not mine.”
Another police officer changes statements in court:
The prosecution then called Peter Owang, another police officer attached to Bugolobi Police Station. Owang testified that he had been called to the scene of the crime and had found a pistol and other evidence.
Owang testified that he received a phone call from Dr. Otai, informing him of a suicide by shooting at the scene.
He also stated that Patricia, who was present at the scene, wanted to report the incident as an accident.
However, during cross-examination by defence lawyer Kabega, Owang contradicted his earlier statement, saying he didn’t record Patricia’s statement about reporting the incident as an accident in his initial statement.
Kabega pressed Owang to explain the discrepancy, and the witness admitted that he might have forgotten to record some details.
The defense lawyer then pointed out that Owang’s statement, made two days after the incident, omitted crucial information—including Martha’s presence at the scene.
The defense counsel, MacDosman Kabega, cross-examined both witnesses, highlighting the inconsistencies in their testimonies.
Katanga nephew put to task over lies
On July 10, 2024, the prosecution called Timothy Nyangweso, a presenter at Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) and a church minister at Watoto Church. Nyangweso testified that he had called Martha, the deceased’s daughter, on November 2, 2023, and that she had told him about the deceased’s death. However, the defence counsel produced a call data list that showed no record of Nyangweso’s call.
Evidence shows that the daughter called police:
ASP Musede Samuel, attached to Jinja Road Police Division, also testified that he had received a call from Patricia Kakwanza, a friend of the deceased, informing him of the suicide. He found a pistol, spent cartridge, live bullet, and blood in the room, but did not see Molly Katanga, the accused, at the scene.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at editorial@watchdoguganda.com
