The high-profile trial in the case of Uganda vs. Molly Katanga and four others resumed on March 31, 2025, with the prosecution presenting two additional witnesses in an attempt to further implicate the primary accused, Molly Katanga, in the alleged murder of her husband, Henry Katanga, who died from a gunshot wound on November 2, 2023.
One of the prosecution’s key witnesses was Derrick Nasawali, a forensic examiner specializing in ballistics and tool marks at the Uganda Police Force. Nasawali appeared as the prosecution’s 11th witness and was tasked with examining exhibits recovered from the crime scene and submitted by investigators at Jinja Road police station.
According to Nasawali’s testimony, the first batch of exhibits was received on November 3, 2023, via police submission form 17A. These exhibits included:
. A Zastava Arms CZ 99 Compact pistol, serial number UG1622200061, reportedly recovered from the master bedroom of the Katanga residence.
. A pistol magazine containing 10 rounds of live ammunition.
. A black pistol case holding 17 additional rounds of pistol ammunition.
. A spent cartridge dressing. Swabs for gunshot residue collected from the suspected entry wound on the left ear of the deceased.
. A swab taken from the muzzle of the suspected murder weapon.
Nasawali told the court he had been instructed to determine whether the firearm was in functional condition and whether the remaining items displayed ballistic characteristics consistent with the use of that particular pistol.
He further testified that a second set of exhibits was submitted to him on November 6, 2023. Among the items was a small projectile (bullet) recovered from the bed, along with gunshot residue swabs taken from Molly Katanga’s left and right hands. Also included were a multi-colored kitenge, a maroon dress reportedly recovered from Patricia Kakwanzi, and two articles of clothing linked to Charles Ottai—a sky-blue doctor’s shirt with a green V-collar and a black T-shirt labeled “African Children.”
Additionally, a mosquito net believed to have been part of the crime scene was submitted for analysis. In his detailed explanation, Nasawali stated: “We cut out several pieces from the exhibits, which were then packaged according to established laboratory protocols and sent to the toxicology unit for gunshot residue analysis.”
The defense challenged the credibility and chain of custody of this forensic evidence, with questions arising around proper storage, handling and testing procedures.
FINDINGS
Nasawali testified on March 31, 2025, that he authored a report dated November 13, 2023, which confirmed the pistol recovered from the crime scene was functional and capable of firing live ammunition.
According to Nasawali, there was strong ballistic evidence linking the cartridge discovered on the deceased’s bed to the submitted firearm. He explained that the individual characteristics of the firing marks on the cartridge were “similar and consistent” with those produced by the pistol, both in terms of their general appear- ance and microscopic details.
Nasawali also told the High court that a nine-millimeter projectile found on the bed bore multiple markings, which he described as consistent with contact against a rough surface or being subjected to heat. He noted that gunshot residue was found on swabs taken from Molly Katanga’s left hand, her multi-colored kitenge dress, and a maroon dress recovered from co-accused Patricia Kakwanzi.
However, he clarified that the mosquito net—also submitted as an exhibit—was not examined, as it had not been listed on the two police forms accompanying the submissions. Following his testimony, state prosecutor Jonathan Muwaganya sought to tender Nasawali’s forensic report and the accompanying Police Form 17As as prosecution exhibits. However, the move was strongly contested by defense counsel Elison Karuhanga, who argued that the forms had been authored by different police officers and not by the witness himself and, therefore, could not be properly submitted through him.
“Our only objection is to the tendering of Police Forms 17A as exhibits because they were authored by police officers, not this witness,” Karuhanga told the court.
He further submitted that this was not the first time the issue had arisen during the trial and that the court had previously guided that the original authors of the documents should be the ones to tender them. Karuhanga added that Nasawali could not speak to how the exhibits were recovered from the crime scene, nor could he establish the chain of custody prior to their arrival at the forensic laboratory.
He suggested that the forms should be received only as identification documents (IDs) for reference, not as official prosecution exhibits. In response, prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya argued that the forms were non-technical in nature and did not require specialized explanation.
“My lord, these are just ordinary documents,” he submitted. “They are not technical in nature to necessitate the presence of their authors.”
He emphasized that the forms had formed the basis of the forensic analysis conducted and documented in Nasawali’s report, and thus qualified for admissibility as prosecution exhibits. Muwaganya also challenged the defense’s insistence on chain of custody at this stage, stating that the prosecution had not yet formally addressed that issue.
After hearing arguments from both sides, presiding judge Justice Rosette Kania ruled that the police forms would only be tendered through their original authors. The court maintained that procedural integrity must be observed in the submission of evidence.
DEFENSE GRILLS FORENSIC WITNESS ON REPORT CREDIBILITY
In the cross-examination of prosecution witness Derrick Nasawali, the defense mounted a firm challenge to the credibility of his forensic report. Defense counsel McDosman Kabega opened the cross-examination by questioning the foundation of Nasawali’s report.
“Would I be right to suggest that the report is a result of your personal knowledge rather than examination?” Kabega asked. Nasawali maintained that his findings were based solely on scientific analysis, replying, “It’s based on my examination.”
Kabega asserted that Nasawali had never visited the crime scene and that much of the report referenced the location of exhibits at the scene.
“We can say much of what is put in the report is from your knowledge, not actual findings,” he said. The witness again insisted, “It’s from my examination and findings.”
Attention then shifted to the custody of exhibits at the police forensic laboratory. Kabega argued that some exhibits claimed by Nasawali to be under his care were, according to earlier testimony by prosecution witness Andrew Mubiru, in his possession during the same time period.
“If someone says those exhibits were in someone else’s custody, not yours, would that be a lie?” Kabega asked. He further said, “Mr Mubiru told this court that he had the gun from November 6, 2023, until he completed his DNA report. How could you have had the same exhib- its?” “The day has 24 hours,” Nasawali replied, implying a shared custody or subsequent transfer.
Kabega challenged the absence of a documented trail of the exhibits’ movement between labs. While Mubiru had previously stated that the police forensic laboratory maintains a register documenting exhibit transfers, Nasawali’s report did not include such details.
“I want to suggest that you couldn’t have had the same exhibits that were in the DNA lab,” Kabega submitted. “That’s your suggestion, sir,” the witness responded. At this point, presiding Judge Rosette Kania intervened, pressing the witness to clarify whether the claim was true or false. Kabega then attempted to cross-examine Nasawali on the discrepancy in serial numbers of the firearm referenced in a separate DNA report authored by Mubiru.
Prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya objected, arguing that the witness could not be questioned on the contents of a report he did not author. Kabega countered that the report was already on the court record, asserting, “That can’t stop me from questioning him on a document that’s on record.”
Judge Kania maintained that since Nasawali was not involved in drafting the DNA report, he could not be cross-examined on its contents. Kabega argued that the gun examined was a different model from the one found at the scene, based on the serial number discrepancy, but the judge reminded the court that this had previously been clarified as a typographical error by Mubiru.
Turning back to the firearm, Kabega requested the alleged murder weapon be presented in court. He asked Nasawali to physically demonstrate whether it was possible to cock the pistol with one hand. Nasawali explained that it could be done by someone with sufficient strength and support.
Kabega argued that Molly Katanga, having sustained injuries to her hands, could not have cocked the gun. “I’m not a doctor,” Nasawali replied, “but I think it depends on the extent of the injury.”
Kabega then focused on the gunshot residue findings. He argued that such residue can spread within a three-meter radius when a gun is fired, and thus, its presence on Molly Katanga’s body was not definitive proof that she fired the weapon. He also questioned why Nasawali submitted a mosquito net to the court when he had testified it was not part of the exhibits officially submitted for examination.
“You can confirm that it wasn’t given to you for examination. So, why did you submit it to the court?” Kabega asked. “It was given to me among the evidence,” Nasawali responded.
At this point, Kabega concluded his cross-examination, and defense counsel Elison Karuhanga took over. Karuhanga focused on the toxicology findings related to gunshot residue. He argued that the chemical compounds identified—such as diphenylamine (DPA)—are commonly found in products like perfumes, body lotions, nail polish and hospital gloves.
“If A1 (Molly Katanga) was in the hospital, I want to suggest that what you detected was medicine in the gloves, not gunshot residue,” Karuhanga said. “I don’t know where she was when the swabs were taken,” the witness replied. Karuhanga then questioned why the swabs labeled M2 and M3—allegedly taken from the same hand—had returned differing test results.
“I want to suggest to you that M2 and M3 are a replica of each other,” he said. “I don’t know, my lord,” the witness responded. Karuhanga pointed out that the report, nonetheless, showed differing findings for the two swabs. The final focus of Karuhanga’s cross-examination was again on the mosquito net. He challenged the witness to explain how he came into possession of the net, which had not been listed in the official police submission form, Form 17A.
“Explain to this court how on earth it came to you,” he demanded. Nasawali explained that the mosquito net—described as blood-stained—was received later in April 2024, six months after his initial report had already been finalized. Karuhanga accused the witness of misleading the court by previously stating that the net had arrived with other items. “Were you telling lies?” he asked.
He further argued that the net bore the same reference number as other exhibits listed on the form, suggesting that Nasawali may have overlooked it due to lax internal tracking procedures.
“It’s possible you just didn’t see the police form,” Karuhanga said. “Because the chain of custody in your laboratory is nothing to speak of.” Karuhanga also questioned the method used by Nasawali to test for gunshot residue (GSR). Reading from a police user manual, the defense claimed that the Uganda Police Force had banned the use of GSR kits for color tests or swabbing purposes.
“I want to suggest to you that the method used here for swabbing is banned,” Karuhanga asserted.
However, the witness rejected the claim, maintaining that the referenced manual paragraph applied to a different type of swabbing, and did not pertain to his testing procedures. Shifting focus to the alleged murder weapon—a pistol—Karuhanga argued that its operation required a firm grip involving both the index and middle fingers.
He referenced medical reports showing that Molly Katanga had suffered fractures in those very fingers.
“Would you agree with me that if you have a fractured index finger and a fractured middle finger, it would make it extremely difficult to maintain a stable grip and pull the trigger?” he asked.
The implication was that the physical condition of the accused would have rendered her unable to fire the weapon in question. The defense further pressed the theory that only one bullet had been fired at the scene, suggesting this raised the possibility of suicide rather than homicide.
Karuhanga contended that if only a single round was discharged, it was more plausible that the deceased had fired the shot himself. “With no other bullet, you can’t rule out suicide?” he asked.
The witness declined to draw conclusions, responding, “I don’t have that information to conclude whether it was a homicide or suicide.”
The line of cross-examination then turned toward the legal authority under which Nasawali conducted his forensic analysis. Karuhanga argued that the witness had not been legally appointed as a ballistic expert by a statutory instrument issued by the responsible minister, as required under Section 43 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
“So, all the evidence you have in this court is of absolutely no value,” he submitted, questioning the admissibility and credibility of the witness’s forensic report.
This line of attack was immediately challenged by prosecution counsel Jonathan Muwaganya, who objected to the relevance and interpretation of the law. Muwaganya argued that the Trial on Indictments Act does not explicitly state which minister is responsible for such appointments and asked the defense to clarify their interpretation.
“Except if he can demonstrate that the minister being referred to in this section means the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, my lord, it is erroneous to just make a claim without legal backing,” he said.
Karuhanga responded by referencing Uganda’s Interpretation Act, asserting that the law places the Trial on Indictments Act under the purview of the ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. He then directly questioned Nasawali: “Is there any minister of the Government of Uganda who has designated you as a government ballistic consultant?”
Prosecution counsel Muwaganya dismissed the argument, stating, “Without a clear indication in the law that this witness is supposed to be licensed by the minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the objection by my learned friend is misleading, erroneous, and reflects a misunderstanding of the law.”
RE-EXAMINATION OF FORENSIC EXPERT DERICK NASAWALI
State Prosecutor Jonathan Muwaganya proceeded with re-examination to clarify several points raised by the defense. Muwaganya first asked Nasawali to clarify the apparent overlap in custody of exhibits between himself and prosecution witness No. 9, Dr Andrew Mubiru.
Nasawali explained that the exhibits in question were initially taken to the DNA laboratory before being returned to the ballistics lab. He stated that this sequence was necessary because ballistic examination involves destructive testing, which could compromise DNA evidence if conducted first.
While the chain of movement was not recorded in his report, Nasawali maintained that such transfers were documented in the internal laboratory register. Regarding the presence of a mosquito net among the submitted evidence—which Nasawali had not examined—he explained that he had an obligation to account for all items submitted to him, even if no testing was conducted.
He further clarified that the mosquito net was submitted six months after his ballistic report had been completed and that he was not aware of its inclusion until it was presented in court. When Muwaganya attempted to question the witness about whether fingerprint evidence is the most reliable method for establishing contact with an object, the defense promptly objected.
Counsel Elison Karuhanga argued that the matter had not been raised during cross-examination and, therefore, could not be introduced during re-examination. He insisted that the prosecution was attempting to clarify the evidence of a previous witness—Dr Mubiru—through Nasawali, which he deemed procedurally improper.
“This is nothing short of a trick,” Karuhanga remarked, arguing that the line of questioning was unrelated to the current witness’s testimony.
On the issue raised by the defense that Molly Katanga could not have fired the gun due to fractured fingers, the prosecution rebutted by suggesting that her injuries might have occurred while chambering the bullet—specifically during contact with the gun’s slide. In an attempt to demonstrate the claim, the prosecution asked Nasawali to insert a pen into the gun’s slide to simulate the action.
This was met with sharp criticism from the defense. Counsel Jet Tumwebaze dismissed the demonstration as implausible, stating that since more bullets remained in the magazine, a new round would have automatically chambered after the shot, making contact with the slide after firing unlikely.
TESTIMONY OF THE 12TH WITNESS DR JAFFAR KISUTU
Following Nasawali’s testimony, the prosecution called its 12th witness, Dr Jaffar Kisitu, a 37-year-old Superintendent of Police and deputy head of the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) Residue Analysis Unit. Dr Kisitu led the analysis of gunshot residue in the Katanga case and authored a report on his findings.
During his examination-in-chief, Dr Kisitu confirmed that the test items analyzed contained components indicative of gunshot residue. However, the defense promptly raised an objection, arguing that the work methods and procedures used by Dr Kisitu had not been disclosed to them prior to trial—an omission they claimed undermined the fairness of proceedings.
Prosecutor Samali Wakooli rebutted the objection, asserting that the police forensic laboratory conducts a wide range of sensitive tests, including those involving terrorism, and publicly disclosing internal laboratory protocols could jeopardize national security.
“We have cases that would put the entire security of the country at risk,” she stated. “It’s not viable to demand disclosure of the entire machine’s workings in court as though it is part of the evidence.”
Nonetheless, the defense maintained its position, emphasizing that fair trial standards required access to the methodologies used in forensic testing.
“If you used a mathematical formula, you must supply it so we can evaluate whether the report aligns with the formula,” argued Counsel Tumwebaze.
“We really need to see the working instructions.” In response, Wakooli contended that all relevant findings had already been included in the report, stating that the defense’s demand was excessive.
“We have disclosed everything that they need to adequately defend their client in this case,” she said.
When the presiding judge inquired whether the forensic work methods could be made available, Dr Kisitu responded that he would need to consult with the Quality department at the police forensic laboratory.
However, he noted that an external report summarizing laboratory work methods was published and offered to share it with the defense team. Cross-examination of Dr Kisitu is expected to proceed when the trial resumes on April 14.