On August 27th, the High Court, presided over by Judge Isaac Muwata, continued to hear the case against Molly Katanga and four others, who are accused of the alleged murder of Henry Katanga.
Prosecution counsel, Samali Wakooli, called the eighth witness, Andrew Kizimula Mubiiru, a 44-year-old forensic scientist responsible for analyzing the DNA samples collected from the crime scene. As the witness finished swearing his oath, defense counsel Elison Karuhanga informed the judge that the defense team had not received the witness statement from the prosecution.
In response, Wakooli asserted that the witness in question was indeed the one who conducted the DNA tests and that the prosecution had shared all relevant details with the defense over three months ago. The defense, however, denied this, requesting an adjournment until the prosecution provided the necessary details on the current witness.
Defense counsel Macdosman Kabega added that the documents in their possession listed a different name, Silvia, instead of the witness present. As both sides exchanged documents to verify this discrepancy, a man in a navy-blue suit, accompanied by a young woman in black and a court guard, entered the courtroom. They placed two boxes labeled “DNA” and three cane-like items wrapped in paper in front of the witness stand.
Wakooli then asserted, “My lord, we are the prosecutors in this case, and it is our prerogative to decide which witnesses to call and when. We are not obligated to present witnesses only upon the defense’s request. We have already provided all the necessary information, and the defense has had ample time to prepare for this witness. The judge interrupted, stating, “Let us proceed, please,” redirecting the court’s attention to Andrew Kizimula Mubiiru, the assistant commissioner of police and acting director of forensic services.
With over 21 years of experience, Mubiiru’s key responsibilities as director include conducting forensic examinations of evidential material submitted by the police under police form 17A. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Chemistry degree from Makerere University (2003) and a master’s in Forensic Science from King’s College London (2008). Mubiiru is also a registered member of the Justice Rapid Response initiative.
The witness, in his capacity as director of Forensic Services, explained that he led the team responsible for conducting the DNA tests, as requested by the police through Police Form 17A. This form outlines the evidence submitted by the police and the specific analysis requested. The witness identified the form in question, stating that he possessed the original copies and could only release the duplicates.
“I have the originals of this form, which are produced in duplicate. The duplicate is included in the investigative file, and the original is kept in my lab file,” he informed the court.
Wakooli, the prosecution counsel, presented a document to the witness, who requested to compare it with his original. After doing so, he confirmed that it was indeed a duplicate of the original he had received on November 3, 2023, and had assigned the lab number DFS/ DNA/682/2023—the same number on the boxes.
Counsel for the defense then requested the form presented to the witness to compare it with their files for better understanding. Ten minutes later, the defense team informed the judge that they did not possess such a document. Judge Muwata inquired if the defense lacked the document entirely, to which counsel Macdosman responded that they did have the document but required another copy. Prosecution counsel Jonathan Muwaganya directed one of the interns to make a copy of the document, accompanied by a guard, as the court proceedings continued.
The request made by the police to the witness was to determine the identity of the individuals or donors of the DNA traces found on the evidence material related to the murder or death of Henry Katanga. The witness then proceeded to read and explain his report to the court, noting that each exhibit had been assigned a specific mark for identification purposes.
On November 3, 2023, the witness received a total of 25 exhibits from the police for analysis. These exhibits included blood swabs collected from the deceased during the post-mortem, blood samples from the crime scene, swabs from both the left and right hands of Molly Katanga, a mouth swab from Molly Katanga, and hair strands recovered from the washroom door frame, among other items.
As the witness read through the labels and descriptions from his report, he flipped to the next page and mentioned an exhibit that was unfamiliar to the defense team, who were following along with a copy of the report provided earlier.
Counsel for the defense immediately interrupted the reading, stating that Exhibit H was not included in their version of the document. They accused the witness of reading from an undisclosed document. Both sides then took time to compare their documents, and the defense requested the witness to present his original for comparison.
It was soon discovered that the copies held by both sides were not identical to the original document. Specifically, the copies were missing an entire exhibit on the second page. The prosecution suggested that this discrepancy might have been due to a photocopying error. However, defense counsel Elison Karuhanga argued that the issue was more serious than a mere photocopying error.
He emphasized that the omission of a whole exhibit was significant and requested that the witness be given a disclosure request to present the full documents he was referencing.
“His own name doesn’t appear in the report. He should give us his originals for photocopying so that we can continue,” Elison insisted. The judge granted this request and allowed the court a 30-minute recess.
Upon returning, the witness continued reading his report on the exhibits he received on November 3. These included a mouth swab from Patricia Kakwanza, boxers recovered from the body during the postmortem that contained blood stains, a white bed sheet with blood stains recovered from the master bedroom, and a suspected blood-stained bandage or gauze (which had been wrapped around the body’s legs according to the testimony of the first responder).
Other exhibits included a black Zastava arms pistol with serial number UG1622200061 CZ99 compact, blood swabs from the bathroom, wall, and inside door frame of the master bedroom’s changing room (the crime scene), blood swabs from the door handle and toilet of the bedroom opposite the master bedroom, a white dress decorated with yellow, black, and red flowers, a light gray bed sheet with the printed words “IHK radiology,” and a pink bedcover with white stripes bearing the words “Bugolobi Medical Center,” recovered from Molly with blood stains at the hospital.
Additionally, there was a pink bedcover with white, green, brown, and light blue stripes stained with blood, which had been used to cover the deceased at the crime scene. All these exhibits were handed to the witness with a request to perform four specific tasks.
The first task was to examine all the exhibits for DNA traces and determine whether the DNA on Exhibit 4 (a black Zastava arms pistol) matched the DNA traces on the following exhibits: M-1, M-4, K, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 17. These exhibits included a left-hand swab from Molly Katanga, a mouth swab from Molly Katanga, a mouth swab from Patricia, blood swabs from the bathroom and door handle in the master bedroom, blood swabs from the toilet and wall in the master bedroom, and blood swabs from the door frame inside the washroom at the crime scene.
The second task was to identify the primary donor of the DNA found on Exhibit 4 (the gun). The third task involved comparing the DNA on the above-mentioned exhibits with the DNA traces on exhibits marked D1 (blood swab from the deceased during postmortem), M4 (mouth swab from Molly), K (mouth swab from Patricia), and ND (mouth swab from another individual). The fourth and final task was to conduct any additional forensic examination that could assist in the investigation.
Prosecutor Wakooli then presented another document to the witness, which listed the exhibits received on November 6, 2023. This set included a swab from the trigger of the black Zastava pistol, blood swabs from the door curtain and balcony of the master bedroom, a wooden baton with a brown leather sling recovered from the side drawer of the master bed, a swab from the mouth of Denise Nayebare (marked as Exhibit ND), a blood-stained multi-coloured towel recovered from the shower room in the master bedroom, and a mopping rug on a wooden handle recovered from the washroom (the specific washroom was not identified).
Additional items included swabs recovered during the postmortem, one projectile recovered from the bed of the deceased at the crime scene, live ammunition found in the bullet chamber, a suspected live pistol round recovered from the deceased’s bed, a cartridge casing found on the bedsheet at the crime scene, and a pistol magazine with 10 live rounds removed from the pistol.
The request for this set of exhibits was to determine whether there was DNA on the submitted items and to compare it with the DNA on D-1 and D-2 (blood swabs from the deceased during postmortem), M4 (mouth swab from Molly), K (mouth swab from Patricia), and ND (mouth swab from Nayebare Denise). The final task was to conduct any analysis that might aid the investigation.
The prosecution then presented another form listing exhibits received on November 9, 2023. This set included a total of 10 exhibits, comprising nine swabs from the crime scene and suspected brain matter found on a mosquito net. The request was to examine and ascertain whether there was DNA on the submitted exhibits, compare it with the DNA on D-1, D-2, M4, K, and ND, and carry out any relevant analysis to support the investigation.
The next set of exhibits, received on November 10, 2024, contained five items: two swabs of suspected blood stains from the ceiling at the southern end near the light bulb, a swab of blood from the leg side of the bed frame, a T-shaped copper-like adjustable walking stick, and two wooden sticks measuring 115 cm and 106 cm in length.
Another set of exhibits was received on November 21, 2023. These included two items: a multi-colored kitenge dress recovered from the bed in the bedroom opposite the master bedroom, and a maroon dress with yellow and white decorations recovered from Kakwanzi Patricia. The request was to examine these exhibits for DNA traces, compare the DNA found on them with the DNA on samples D-1, M4, K, CD, and ND, and perform any additional analysis that could assist the investigation.
On November 23, 2023, a further set of five exhibits was received, as the witness informed the court. These included four blood swabs taken from various locations in the master bedroom: the northern wall near the bed, the lower part of the wardrobe, the southern wall, the western wall, and the floor near the entry to the balcony. The request for these exhibits was the same as for the previous ones: to examine for DNA, compare the results with known samples, and conduct any relevant analysis.
Prosecutor Samali Wakooli then asked the witness to explain the procedures followed upon receiving these exhibits. The witness provided a detailed account, stating, “My lord, upon receipt of exhibits, they are transported to the laboratory after a case examiner has been assigned by the head of the Chemical, Biological, Radiology, Nuclear, and Explosives Analysis Department. I lead a team that includes a supervisor, an analyst, and a technician. We access these exhibits through the forensic gateway, accompanied by Police Form 17A and a chain of custody log.”
The witness continued, explaining that the examination process is meticulous and involves several steps.
“Upon receiving the evidence, we examine each material one at a time, taking note of our observations in relation to the descriptions on the request form. Given the small lab space, we have a temporary storage area where we keep the exhibits during the examination process, as it is not a task that can be completed in a single day.”
The examination begins with a visual inspection, during which still photographs of the evidence are taken. The team looks for visible stains, and if the stains are suspected to be semen, blood, or saliva, a presumptive test is conducted to confirm their nature. The affected or stained area is then sketched out, and a specimen is collected and given a coded number or specimen ID, which corresponds to the case number. For items without visible stains, swabs are taken from areas where human contact is likely to have occurred, and these swabs are also assigned unique specimen IDs.
Once the visual examination is complete, the team proceeds to extract pure genomic DNA, separating the DNA of interest from other substances that could interfere with the analysis. The next step is quantitation, which involves measuring the amount of DNA extracted. This is followed by normalization amplification using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and, finally, detection.
The witness concluded by stating, “Once the analysis is completed, we are obliged to submit an evaluative report for court purposes.”
According to the witness, evaluative reports for court are released by the Office of the Director of Forensic Services only after they have undergone the requisite administrative checks. These checks include confirming the report’s release date, the date when the authors completed the report, and the presence of hash (#) numbers (identification numbers) of the examiners. These hash numbers are used to maintain the integrity of the examiners and prevent bias during the examinations.
The prosecution then presented a report to the witness, asking him to demonstrate the features he had described. The witness identified the document as a report for VIT Jinja Road CRB1070/2023, released under reference DFS/192/049/2024 on April 30, 2024, to OCCIDENTAL Jinja Road, with the releasing officer being Sylvia Chelangat, the acting deputy director of Forensic Services.
The report in question, DFS/DNA682/2023, is titled “DNA Analysis Report” and is addressed to the OC CID Jinja Road Police Station for CRB 1070/2023. The witness pointed out his hash number (#1) at the bottom of each page, along with his signature on page 36 and the date the report was concluded. He confirmed that the document he held was the original report authored by him and his team, released on April 30, 2024.
The prosecution then asked the witness to explain the contents of this report to the court. The witness began by stating that the exhibits received were grouped and assigned specimen IDs. The report includes Table 6, which details the exhibit labels, specimen sources, specimen IDs, and the results for each specimen. This table spans 48 rows and covers pages 17 to 20. At this point, the court was adjourned to the next day, the 28th of August.
On August 28th, the High Court session, presided over by Justice Isaac Muwata, resumed to hear Case 100/2024, Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and four others. The trial continued with the interpretation of the DNA results by the forensic scientist, who was the eighth witness presented by the prosecution.
The witness explained, “My lord, we have two major categories of DNA profiles that we analyze. The first category includes DNA profiles from a single source origin, and the second involves mixed profiles, where there is more than one contributor. In such cases, we analyze the DNA to determine whether it is likely that the DNA was donated by someone other than the original donor.”
He further explained that the exhibits were grouped into categories and assigned alphabetical labels. In the first category, specimens derived from their respective exhibits had DNA profiles from a single female source. The evidence showed that these DNA profiles were a billion times more likely to have been donated by the suspect, Molly Katanga, than by an untested or unrelated individual from the Ugandan population.
Category B consisted of single-source profiles from a male donor. The evidence indicated that the DNA profiles were a billion times more likely to have been donated by the deceased, Henry Katanga, than by an untested or unrelated individual from the Ugandan populace.
The witness also addressed a cutting from the collar area of a dress marked as Exhibit KP, which belonged to Patricia and had suspected stains. The results stated, “The DNA profile on this specimen is a single-source DNA and is a billion times more likely if the suspect Patricia is the donor, as opposed to an untested unrelated individual from the Ugandan populace.”
Category D involved a cutting from the bed sheet recovered from Molly Katanga. The profile from this specimen revealed a mixed DNA sample from at least two donors. Prosecution counsel Wakooli asked the witness for his conclusion regarding this finding.
The witness responded, “My lord, from the analysis, it is a billion times more likely to observe this particular mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is Molly Katanga and one untested individual from the Ugandan population, as opposed to two untested individuals from the Ugandan population. Therefore, the suspect Molly cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the DNA on specimen 682Y23S007 from Exhibit M6.”
As the report continued, it was revealed that dried blood particles recovered from the bathroom door frame belonged to Molly. The witness stated, “It’s a mixed DNA profile, and the analysis shows that the DNA evidence is a billion times more likely if the major contributor is Molly Katanga. The suspect, Molly Katanga, cannot be excluded as a donor contributor to the mixed DNA profile.”
A swab taken from the pistol magazine also revealed a mixed DNA profile of at least three contributors: the deceased Henry Katanga, and the suspects; Molly Katanga and Patricia Kankwanzi. The witness explained, “It is a billion times more likely to observe this mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is Molly Katanga and the minor contributors are the deceased and Patricia, as opposed to the deceased and two other untested, unrelated individuals in the Ugandan population. We can infer that the suspect Molly, being a major contributor, and Patricia, being a minor contributor, cannot be excluded as donor contributors to the DNA from specimen 682Y23S017 from Exhibit 4-1.”
Further analysis of a swab taken from the trigger and trigger guard of the pistol showed a mixed DNA profile of at least three contributors: Henry Katanga, Molly Katanga, and Patricia Kankwanzi. The witness stated, “The analysis showed that it is a billion times more likely to observe this mixed DNA profile if the major contributor is Molly Katanga, and the minor contributors are the deceased and Patricia, as opposed to the deceased and two other untested, unrelated individuals in the Ugandan population. Therefore, we can infer that the suspect Molly, being a major contributor, and Patricia, being a minor contributor, cannot be excluded as donor contributors to the DNA from the swabbing of the trigger and trigger guard.”
During this explanation, the translator appeared to struggle with finding the appropriate word for “trigger” in Rutooro. Observing her confusion, the judge kindly offered the correct term, “emanduso,” which brought about a wave of subdued laughter in the courtroom.
Finally, the swab taken from the pistol and pistol barrel showed traces of a mixed DNA profile belonging to the deceased and Molly Katanga. The report concluded that if the major donor was Henry and the minor donor was Molly, as opposed to the deceased and another untested, unrelated individual from the Ugandan population, then the suspect Molly, being a minor contributor, could not be excluded as a donor contributor.
A cutting from a swab of gunshot residues obtained during the postmortem also revealed a mixed DNA profile from at least two contributors: Henry and the suspect Molly. The analysis revealed that the mixed DNA profile observed is a billion times more likely to have the deceased as the major contributor and the suspect, Molly, as the minor contributor. Consequently, the witness inferred that Molly, as a minor contributor, cannot be excluded as a donor to the DNA profile.
A swab taken from the projectile recovered from the deceased’s bed also presented a mixed DNA profile, with the deceased Henry and suspect Molly as contributors. The analysis indicated that it is a billion times more likely that Molly is the major contributor and Henry the minor contributor, rather than Henry and an unrelated individual. Therefore, Molly, as a major contributor, cannot be excluded as a donor of the DNA on this specimen.
The witness explained that being a major contributor simply means that an individual’s DNA is more prevalent on the examined exhibit. DNA is naturally shed and transferred to surfaces we come into contact with, and various factors influence how much DNA is left behind. Following this interpretation, the witness proceeded to open sealed boxes of evidence to present to the judge. Inside these boxes were small packages, double-wrapped in khaki and white paper.
When asked by the prosecution about the missing exhibits—specifically the gun, the projectile, and live ammunition—the witness explained that these items had already been returned to the forensic gateway as they were required for further ballistic examination in another lab. Prosecutor Wakooli then applied to tender in six police forms, dated 3rd, 6th, 9th, 10th, 21st, and 23rd. This sparked a heated but factual exchange between the defense and prosecution teams.
DEFENCE CHALLENGES EVIDENCE
Defense counsel Elison Karuhanga stated, “We have no objection to the tendering of the DNA report. However, regarding Police Form 17A, since the witness is only the author of the report and did not authorize the form, we object to its tendering. He cannot explain how the exhibits were recovered. Similarly, with regard to the physical items, these were not recovered by him, and he can only identify the physical exhibits. The individuals who prepared these items must be the ones to tender them in court.”
Judge Muwata suggested a break, but Wakooli continued, “My lord, the exhibit for the report bears the witness’s signature. Regarding the objection to the police forms, they bear the lab’s stamp, they have the lab number assigned by the lab, and they are under his care. He is the final receiver and in charge, so he can confidently tender them. In fact, he has the original of what we are presenting, meaning the documents are his, and he is the custodian.”
Regarding the physical exhibits, it was demonstrated that the witness was both the first and final user, meaning the chain of custody ends with him. This is why the exhibits were sealed, as clearly shown in court with his seal. The witness is a competent officer, and as such, the prosecution can tender these exhibits through him.
Defense counsel Elison argued that the handling of exhibits is governed by the Evidence Act and the Constitution Exhibit Management Guidelines of 2021, specifically under Rule 3, Sub-rule 2, which states: “To ensure the integrity of the chain of custody of evidence.” He emphasized, “My lord, we cannot ensure the integrity of the chain if we only consider the end of the chain. It is well-established law, as seen in Mzee vs. Uganda, that an expert cannot tender in specimens that they did not personally recover. This witness can only speak to items he received on the 11th, yet his evidence shows they were recovered on the 8th. Where were these items before he received them? My lord, you recall that the prosecution refused to provide certain documents.”
Prosecutor Wakooli said, “The law he cited defines the chain of custody as the chronological and careful documentation of evidence to establish its connection to the crime up until its final disposal. In this case, the final disposal is with this witness. Furthermore, Guideline 26 outlines who can tender and the procedure for tendering, which includes the witness with the chain of custody—in this case, this particular witness. The witness has also shown the unique sealing marks on the exhibits, and with reference to the law and guidelines, such a witness is indeed qualified to tender these exhibits.”
The lead defense counsel informed the judge, “This witness has provided evidence on matters we cannot properly respond to because we lack the requisite information that we requested from the prosecution. We ask for the list of materials and documents, which were provided but with critical omissions. We are unable to conduct a fair hearing without these materials.”
The defense then read a letter sent to the prosecution, which they claimed was ignored, detailing all the requested documents. They asked the judge to order the witness to provide the documents he was allegedly withholding. With this, the court was adjourned to the next day as it awaited a ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence.
At 11:10 am, Judge Isaac Muwata ruled; “The admissibility of evidence hinges on the ability to demonstrate the movement and handling of exhibits from the time they were collected to their presentation in court. Only individuals with direct knowledge of the exhibits or those who were the last custodians of the items can properly tender them in court. The exhibits whose evidence of recovery hasn’t been established can’t be tendered at this stage.”
Judge Muwata cited Rule 25, Sub-rule 2 of the Courts of Judicature Directions of 2021, which implies that such evidence can only be identified by the witness who conducted the examinations. He ruled that exhibits recovered during the post-mortem and those recovered with witnesses who have testified can be tendered.
The defense team requested 10 days to prepare for the cross-examination of the witness, which the prosecution objected to, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the trial. However, Judge Muwata granted their request and instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to provide the defense with the necessary DNA evidence for use in the cross-examinations. The court was then adjourned until the 10th of September, 2024.
inarticle} inarticle}