Tension rippled through the High court last week as the long-running murder trial of Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and Four Others took a dramatic turn, with defense lawyers accusing the prosecution’s 20th witness of launching a smear campaign and mishandling the crime scene that lies at the heart of the case.
The trial, now nearly two years in, centers on the death of prominent businessman Henry Katanga, who was found with a fatal gunshot wound at the couple’s family home on November 2, 2023. His widow, Molly Katanga, is the main suspect. Four others, including household staff, stand accused of tampering with evidence.
Presided over by justice Rosette Kania, the case has become one of Uganda’s most closely watched courtroom dramas. The prosecution continues to call witnesses in its bid to tie Molly Katanga to her husband’s death—while the defense is pushing back hard, questioning not only the evidence, but the integrity of those gathering it.
THE CRIME SCENE OFFICER UNDER FIRE
This week’s cross-examination focused on Emmanuel Olugu, a police officer with five years of experience in forensic crime scene investigations.
Olugu testified that he was dispatched to the Katanga residence in Mbuya by his supervisor at the division CID, under the assumption that the case involved a suicide. But when he arrived, Olugu said, something felt off.
“The scene was too complicated. It didn’t match what I expected from a suicide. That’s when I called for reinforcements,” Olugu told the court. But his testimony quickly came under fire from defense attorney MacDosman Kabega, who challenged the officer’s official report.
“Can you confirm that your report contains no mention of tampering or destruction of evidence?” Kabega asked.
Olugu admitted that his report did not indicate any evidence had been tampered with—a crucial omission given that four of the accused are specifically charged with doing just that.
ACCUSATIONS OF MEDIA LEAKS AND BIAS
In a more explosive exchange, lead defense lawyer Elison Karuhanga accused Olugu of colluding with members of Henry’s family to malign Molly and her co-accused. Karuhanga alleged that Olugu had even leaked crime scene photos to the media before a formal investigation had concluded.
“I have instructions from the accused that you were part of a publicity campaign to smear them,” Karuhanga said.
Olugu, visibly shaken, denied the allegations.
“I don’t know what counsel is talking about, my lord,” he replied firmly.
But Karuhanga didn’t back down. He produced a tabloid photo, published by The Red Pepper, purportedly taken at the crime scene days before police had completed their investigation.
“Can you confirm that this photo was taken at the scene you were investigating?” Karuhanga asked. Olugu declined to confirm the photo’s origin, saying it was unclear and that he did not know who took it.
Still, Karuhanga argued that the leak was evidence of negligence—or worse.
“You had no control over that crime scene. Any of the ten people present could have taken those photos,” Karuhanga pressed.
Olugu responded that his job was limited to the upstairs area where the deceased was found and that outer security was handled by other officers. But Karuhanga wasn’t satisfied.
“You didn’t maintain an entry-and-exit log. Not one person who accessed the scene signed in. Even members of the media entered the premises without restriction,” Karuhanga charged.
The prosecution objected to the line of questioning, calling it irrelevant since Olugu had already stated he didn’t know who leaked the photos. But Karuhanga insisted the questions were valid, citing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
PROCEDURE BREACHES AND FORENSIC FLAWS
The defense went further, accusing Olugu of violating standard crime scene protocol. According to the crime scene manual, officers are required to wear full forensic protective gear.
Karuhanga said none of the officers wore protective suits, increasing the risk of contaminating vital evidence. Olugu disagreed.
“We were wearing gloves, my lord,” he said. But the defense was not done. Karuhanga argued that the officer received his briefing from the wrong person. According to his report, Olugu was briefed by Charles Otai, not AIP Samuel Musedde, the first officer on the scene.
Olugu responded that Musedde had referred him to Otai. Karuhanga also took issue with Olugu conducting multiple walkthroughs of the scene with different groups of people.
“Every contact leaves a trace,” he said. “You increased the risk of contamination.” Olugu stood his ground. “That’s not true, my lord. I was protecting myself and ensuring those entering the room did so responsibly.”
A BATTLE OVER THE NARRATIVE
The courtroom exchanges reflected the larger stakes of the Katanga case— one that has riveted the country and raised questions about how justice is administered in high-profile murder investigations.
At its core, the defense strategy is built on dismantling the credibility of the prosecution’s investigation—from mishandled forensics to alleged media leaks, procedural violations, and possible bias within the police force.
Whether this strategy will be enough to cast reasonable doubt remains to be seen. But what is clear is that the trial is as much a battle over public perception as it is over legal facts.
WHAT’S NEXT
The cross-examination of Officer Olugu continues this week, as the defense tests the integrity of the state’s case.
With each testimony, the layers of this complex legal saga continue to unfold— revealing a story not just about one tragic death, but about institutional trust, procedural integrity, and the public’s faith in justice itself.