Molly Katanga’s 4th bail attempt: Will she finally walk free?

The long-awaited trial of Molly Katanga, accused of murdering her husband, Henry Katanga, resumed on February 14, 2025, after multiple postponements.

The case, which had been delayed due to the illness of presiding judge Isaac Muwata and subsequent judicial proceedings, is now being heard before Justice Rosette Comfort Kania at the High court’s criminal division. Katanga, along with her daughters Patricia and Martha, and two domestic workers, George Amanyire and Charles Otai, face charges related to the killing of Henry Katanga on November 2, 2023, at their family residence in Mbuya, Chwa road.

Molly is charged with murder, while her daughters are accused of tampering with crucial evidence. The two household employees stand accused of being accessories after the fact.

CASE BACKGROUND AND PROSECUTION’S ARGUMENTS

According to police investigations, Henry Katanga was killed by a gunshot wound to the left side of his head, with the bullet exiting through his right ear. A responding officer testified that upon arrival at the crime scene, he found George Amanyire cleaning blood near what appeared to be a lifeless body placed on a small mattress.

The prosecution argues that a violent altercation occurred between Molly and her husband before the fatal gunshot. Witnesses, including the household workers, allegedly heard a struggle followed by a gunshot. The prosecution further contends that Patricia Katanga called the police, reporting that someone had shot themselves, which investigators claim was a deliberate attempt to mislead the authorities.

Under Uganda’s Penal Code (CAP 120), the prosecution must establish three key elements to secure a murder conviction: first, that the victim is deceased, which has been proven through postmortem reports and witness testimony; second, that the death was unlawful; and third, that it was caused with malice aforethought— meaning the accused intended to kill or acted in a way that would likely result in death. The prosecution must prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt.

DEFENSE’S COUNTERARGUMENTS

Molly Katanga’s defense, led by a team from Kampala Associated Advocates and Tumusiime Company Advocates, has countered these allegations by asserting that she was a victim of domestic violence on the night of her husband’s death. They argue that forensic evidence presented in court shows that most of the blood found at the crime scene belonged to Molly, indicating she had sustained severe injuries.

Her legal team has also contested the credibility of the prosecution’s 10 witnesses, questioning inconsistencies in their statements and the handling of evidence.

COURT PROCEEDINGS AND JUDICIAL CONDUCT

On February 14, at exactly 10am, court proceedings commenced in High Court Room 3. As the courtroom rose for Justice Kania’s entrance, she issued a clear directive regarding judicial integrity: “Before we begin, I want to make it clear that I shall never send anyone to any of the parties to see them on my behalf. If anyone approaches you on these terms, you deal with them at your own risk. In the same vein, I don’t expect any of the parties to send anyone to see me. If there is a matter on which the advocates wish to see me, please come with the counsel of the other team.”

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Samali Wakooli and Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwanganya, with Mwesigye Rukutana, Brian Rubihayo, and Edigar Ayebazibwe observing on a watching brief. Molly Katanga’s defense team includes Peter Kabatsi, Elison Karuhanga, and Jet Tumwebaze from Kampala Associated Advocates, alongside McDusman Kabega from Tumusiime Company Advocates.

As the trial proceeds, the court is set to hear further testimonies and review forensic evidence to determine the fate of the accused. The case continues to attract significant public interest, given its complexity and the high-profile nature of those involved.

At the start of the hearing, lead prosecutor Samali Wakooli conducted a roll call of the accused persons and the defense team before presenting the day’s agenda. However, Justice Kania clarified that the only matter before the court was the bail application, not a mention of the main case.

DEFENSE SUBMITS SURETIES AND MEDICAL GROUNDS FOR BAIL

Defense counsel Peter Kabatsi, representing Katanga, presented three sureties: John Patrick Kabayo, Geoffrey Kamuntu, and Major General Emmanuel Nyamunwanisa. The individuals, holding their identification documents, stepped forward as the judge carefully examined their credentials.

Justice Kania reminded them of their responsibilities, emphasizing that they must ensure the accused appears in court as required, sign the bail form, and promptly notify the court when she is unable to attend proceedings. Kabatsi argued that his client was not a flight risk and would not interfere with the 10 prosecution witnesses already on record.

He further stated that she had a permanent residence in Kampala and was still recovering from injuries sustained on the night of her husband’s death. Supporting his argument, Kabatsi submitted a medical report authored by Dr James Kisambu, a prison doctor who has attended to Katanga during her remand.

The report highlighted her medical conditions, including hypertension, multiple breast masses, vertigo and post-traumatic stress disorder. The report concluded that the monitoring of these conditions was beyond the capacity of prison medical services.

PROSECUTION OPPOSES BAIL

Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwa- ganya opposed the application, arguing that the law on successive bail applications was well established: an applicant could file multiple applications, but each must introduce new grounds. He contended that Katanga’s latest application mirrored her previous three unsuccessful attempts and did not present any new material changes.

“The current application is premised on the same grounds as the first two, with no new issues being introduced or change in circumstances,” Muwaganya argued, urging the judge to dismiss it.

He further challenged the medical evidence, stating that the documents presented were nearly a year old and had already been used in previous bail applications. Muwaganya criticized the defense’s reliance on non-medical deponents to explain Katanga’s health condition, asserting that only expert medical testimony should be considered.

Referring to an annexed report authored by Dr Kisambu on February 8, 2024, Muwaganya contended that the doctor was merely reviewing an earlier report from a team of consultants at Mulago hospital, rather than conducting a fresh assessment. He questioned the authority of
Dr. Kisambu, a prison medical officer, to review findings made by three specialist consultants.

Turning to the sureties, Muwaganya scrutinized the authenticity of their recommendation letters. He noted that Geoffrey Kamuntu’s letter, dated February 12, 2025, was an exact handwritten replica of a previously submitted letter from an earlier bail application, raising concerns over forgery.

He also pointed out inconsistencies in the authorship of these letters, stating that one was signed by Muhangi Ronald as LC secretary while another bore the name Auma Wandera, both using the same official stamp. Regarding John Patrick Kabayo, Muwaganya argued that his original recommendation letter, dated April 14, 2024, had been altered with a more recent version dated February 12, 2025, raising suspicions about its credibility.

He also pointed to Kabayo’s age—77 years old—stating that he was too elderly to effectively execute his duties as a surety. With these submissions, Muwaganya concluded: “We pray that this application be denied for the reasons contained in our objection. The case is in its advanced stages, with 10 witnesses on record. This is one of the most fast-tracked trials in Uganda’s justice system.”

DEFENSE REBUTS PROSECUTION’S CLAIMS

Defense counsel Elison Karuhanga responded forcefully, challenging the prosecution’s dismissal of Katanga’s medical condition. He argued that Muwaganya had failed to provide any proof that Dr. Kisambu was unqualified to conduct medical reviews or that his report lacked credibility.

“My learned friend rushed into saying the medical reports are the same and, without evidence, claimed the Commissioner of Health Services at Luzira is junior to Mulago consultants. Even if that were true, it only strengthens our case for bail, as it proves that no senior doctors are available in prison to treat the defendant,” Karuhanga countered.

Directing the judge to Annex 2 of the defense’s submission, he pointed out a critical discrepancy in the prosecution’s argument. The February 2024 Mulago report described a single cystic mass in Katanga’s left breast, whereas Dr Kisambu’s examination later identified multiple fibroid masses in the same breast.

Karuhanga asserted that this new finding constituted a change in medical circumstances, warranting bail. On the issue of the sureties, Karuhanga dismissed the prosecution’s concerns as irrelevant, stating:

“This court is not reviewing the suitability of the LC officials; it is reviewing the suitability of the sureties.”

Holding up the contested documents, he directly addressed the objections raised about John Patrick Kabayo:

“The prosecution argues that his recommendation letter says exactly the same thing as the previous one. That is because the information remains true—he has lived in the area since the 1960s, owns 200 acres of land, was an area MP, and is widely regarded in his community. While his face may look 78, his body looks 48. The court cannot reject him as a surety on these flimsy objections.”

Regarding Major General Emmanuel Nyamunwanisa, Karuhanga dismissed prosecution concerns over inconsistencies in the LC letter, pointing out that the affidavit in support of his surety status remained unchallenged.

“The affidavit shows that Major General Emmanuel Nyamunwanisa, apart from being the applicant’s relative, is a retired two-star UPDF general, a former diplomat, and her immediate next-door neighbour in Mbuya. His suitability as a surety does not depend on the LC chairman, who seems unaware that there is no chief magistrate in the High court.”

DEFENSE ARGUES AGAINST “PUNISHMENT WITHOUT VERDICT”

Senior defense lawyer McDosman Kabega then took the floor, stressing the severity of Katanga’s medical condition. He urged the court not to deny her necessary medical care, emphasizing that the prison’s medical services were inadequate for her condition.

“What is being sought by the prosecution is punishment without verdict, a prison sentence imposed by the machinery of the trial,” Kabega argued.

He urged the court to respect the foundational principles of justice, including the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, asserting that Katanga posed no risk to society and should be allowed to conduct her defense from the comfort of her home.

COURT ADJOURNS FOR RULING

Following these submissions, Justice Kania adjourned the hearing. The court is set to deliver its ruling on Katanga’s bail application on February 21, 2025. The decision is eagerly awaited, given the high-profile nature of the case and the legal arguments presented by both sides.