The murder trial of Uganda vs Molly Katanga and Four Others resumed last Monday with the twelfth prosecution witness, Dr Jaffar Kisitu—a forensic chemist with the Uganda Police Forensic Examination department—undergoing cross-examination by the defense.
During the session, defense counsel McDosman Kabega questioned the chain of custody of the exhibits. He asserted that the internal memo sent to the toxicology laboratory lacked the witness’s signature, suggesting he may not have officially received the items.
“Can you confirm to her lordship that there is nothing to show that you received them?” Kabega asked.
In response, Dr Kisitu stated that although the memo lacked his signature, a separate register documented his receipt of the exhibits. Kabega pressed further: “Please don’t volunteer answers.”
Kabega also challenged the authorship of the toxicology report, arguing that it listed Franco Nsoba as the analyst, not Dr Kisitu.
“Nsoba Franco is the analyst of this gunshot residue—not you,” he stated. Dr Kisitu explained that while Nsoba was part of his team, he, as the team leader, supervised the analysis and signed the report as the reviewer.
“The report does not indicate anywhere that you analyzed the samples. Can you show the court where you signed as the analyst?” Kabega asked.
Dr Kisitu maintained that, as the reviewer, he was the lead examiner and had supervised all stages of the analysis.
INCOSISTENCY
Kabega continued to challenge the report, accusing Dr Kisitu of including contradictory findings. He pointed out that while the analysis summary claimed gunshot residue was detected on all test items, it also stated that no residue was found on M2—Molly Katanga’s right hand.
“Can I suggest to you that your report is full of lies?” Kabega pressed. Dr Kisitu replied, “That’s your suggestion, sir.” Kabega emphasized the inconsistency: “The claim that all the test items had gunshot residue is not entirely true—it’s partly false.”
The defense further questioned the post-analysis handling of the test items, alleging the report failed to clarify whether the items were returned after examination. Defense lawyer Elison Karuhanga took over the cross-examination, accusing Dr Kisitu of multiple factual errors in his report.
The report stated that test samples were received on October 10, 2023, but Dr Kisitu admitted that this was incorrect and the actual date was November 10, 2023. Karuhanga argued this wasn’t the only inaccuracy.
He highlighted another error in the report, which claimed it was written on “Thursday, November 13, 2023”—a date that does not exist.
“Can you confirm to this court that you did not write your report on Thursday, Novem- ber 13, 2023? The claim is false,” Karuhanga asserted. Dr. Kisitu maintained that the date listed was a Thursday as stated in the report.
Karuhanga asked him to check the 2023 calendar, showing that the date was inaccurate. Karuhanga suggested the report was the result of copy-pasting from previously written documents.
“That’s not what I did,” Dr Kisitu responded. Still, Karuhanga pressed: “The mistakes in your report reveal a terrible level of carelessness.” Dr Kisitu answered, “It’s a mistake that can be done by anyone.”
Karuhanga then shifted focus to the witness’s work instructions, alleging that despite repeated requests, Dr Kisitu failed to provide them. The witness contended that he had submitted a public publication of the work instructions and a publication certificate through prosecution counsel Jonathan Muwaganya, who forwarded them to Karuhanga via WhatsApp.
The defense sought to submit both the publication and the WhatsApp messages as defense exhibits. However, Muwaganya objected to the WhatsApp messages being entered through the witness.
“My phone is still here. I can confirm the conversation he wants to tender from the witness is doctored,” Muwaganya stated. “This is professional fraud.” “What’s so important about this message?” the judge inquired.
Karuhanga replied that it was to put the method of disclosure on record. The defense further questioned inconsistencies between the toxicology report and the published work instructions. Karuhanga argued that the publication was released in 2025, while the report was written in November 2023.
“Is it your evidence on oath in this court that a document published on March 13, 2025, contains work instructions applied in November 2023?” he asked.
Dr Kisitu was also pressed on whether he had followed the work instructions during his analysis. Karuhanga pointed out a specific instruction stating that swabs must be air-dried at room temperature and asked whether this was done.
Dr Kisitu replied that the swabs were already air-dried upon delivery. Karuhanga accused the witness of using unauthorized documents, arguing that the publication’s study was approved by the Gulu University Research Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology—bodies with which Dr Kisitu is not affiliated.
“Are you part of Gulu University? Is your lab affiliated with Gulu Univer- sity?” Karuhanga asked.
He continued, “You come to a court of law claiming that your work instructions are globally published, yet you’re unwilling to provide sensitive information from your lab. And you instead present a Gulu University document—are you being dishonest?”
The defense concluded that Dr Kisitu was the first forensic examiner to claim detection of gunshot residue without testing for lead, barium and antimony.
“No scientist has had the audacity to appear under oath without testing for these elements. Your record is all over East Africa,” Karuhanga said.
He argued that current forensic literature suggests that even when testing for organic gunshot residue, it must only serve as a complementary test to inorganic residue analysis, which includes lead, barium and antimony— standards not followed by the witness.
Karuhanga then questioned why Dr Kisitu’s report did not include quantitative results and accused him of omitting key elements in the analysis. He shifted focus to the specific GSR tests conducted on swabs taken from Molly Katanga’s hands and clothing.
When asked if any GSR was detected, Dr Kisitu explained that the mere presence of diphenylamine (DPA) is insufficient.
“The analysis must also detect DPA’s breakdown products—such as 2-nitro- DPA (2nDPA)—to confirm the residue is consistent with firearm discharge,” he stated.
Karuhanga referenced two swab samples labeled M2 and M3, taken from Molly’s right hand. One tested negative, and the other showed traces of DPA and nitroglycerine but lacked necessary derivative compounds.
Based on these findings, Dr Kisitu conceded that the results could not be classified as gunshot residue. To emphasize the point, Karuhanga asked Molly, who was attending via Zoom from Luzira Maximum Security prison, to raise her right hand.
She slowly lifted it—revealing that the top half of her pinky finger was missing. Karuhanga then posed the question: “On that hand… no GSR… right?” Dr. Kisitu confirmed: “Correct.”
RE-EXAMINATION OF DR JAFFAR KISITU
Following the defense’s cross-examination, prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya re-examined witness Dr Jaffar Kisitu to clarify issues raised by the defense. Muwaganya began by asking the witness to explain why certain items were not tested, as alleged by the defense.
Dr Kisitu clarified that the items in question contained organic components of gunshot residue (GSR), which were not subjected to testing in his analysis. “
What I tested for were inorganic components of gunshot residue,” the witness explained.
Next, Muwaganya asked the witness to justify his decision to use a testing method that the defense had referred to as merely supplementary.
“It was stated that the organic GSR method can only be used to supplement the tradi- tional method. Explain to the court why you used it,” Muwaganya prompted. Dr Kisitu responded, “The organic gunshot residue method tests for organic materials. However, if you look at a bullet, a larger portion is composed of powder, which is inorganic in nature.”
Muwaganya then addressed the literature that defense counsel Elison Karuhanga claimed was not included in the witness’s report. Dr Kisitu clarified that he was not required to attach such literature.
“I am not obligated to include it,” he stated. The prosecution proceeded to re-examine the witness on the issue of gunpowder.
This prompted an objection from Karuhanga, who argued that gunpowder was not discussed during cross-examination.
“My lord, the rules of cross-examination are clear. This matter never arose during the cross,” Karuhanga contended.
However, the prosecution insisted that the topic was indeed discussed and offered to play a recording as proof.
“My lord, we have the recording on the phone to prove that,” Muwaganya said. After the audio was played, Karuhanga claimed he had been quoted out of context and requested to re-cross-examine the witness. The request was granted by the presiding judge, Justice Rosette Kania.
Once the matter was resolved, Muwaganya asked the witness to clarify why he did not find gunpowder on Molly Katanga’s right hand.
“You said you did not find gunpowder on Molly’s right hand—why did you say so?” Dr Kisitu explained, “Gunshot residue is formed after the discharge of a firearm, whereas gunpowder exists pre-discharge. During analysis, we are looking for GSR, not gunpowder.”
The prosecution attempted to question the witness regarding swabs M1 and M2, which were taken from Molly Katanga’s hands. Before the question was completed, the defense objected, arguing that the issue had not been raised during cross-examination.
Karuhanga maintained that the witness refused to examine the items, stating he had received blind requests. Muwaganya insisted that the defense had brought up the matter earlier. The prosecution then returned to a document used during cross-examination.
“What is your understanding of the formula provided in paragraph ten of this document?” Muwaganya asked.
“It’s a formula used to determine gunshot residue,” Dr Kisitu replied. Karuhanga again objected, arguing that the formula was never discussed during cross-examination.
“This is re-examination about formulas that did not arise during cross-examination. He is introducing new matters,” Karuhanga stated.
In response, Muwaganya argued that once a document is introduced during cross-examination, the prosecution is entitled to re-examine on any part of it. “In the interest of clarification, we can address the entire document. I can’t be limited to a subsection,” he said.
When asked whether he would find organic gunshot residue using the same formula, the witness affirmed that he would. The witness was also asked to describe the condition in which the samples were received by his laboratory.
“They were received in sealed, tamper-proof bags,” he stated. Dr Kisitu further explained why he did not swab himself before the analysis, a concern raised by the defense.
“Under no circumstance do I, as the exam- iner, touch the test items,” he said. “In our lab’s standard procedures, we only collect swabs from the person who prepared the test items. We also swab the work surface and the hands of whoever handled the items, like the pieces of clothing submitted to us.”
He added that during analysis, the lab team uses protective gear and appropriate tools to prevent contamination. Muwaganya then asked the witness to explain what he meant by saying he used a template when writing his report.
“The template follows a standard code that outlines what should be included in documenting analysis findings,” Dr Kisitu explained.
“After completing our data analy- sis, we populate the templates with relevant information.”
The prosecution also sought clarification on why not all three components detected on Exhibit D5 (a swab from the firearm’s muzzle) appeared on all other test items.
“I want you to clarify to the court—must all three components found on Exhibit D5 also appear on every other item for a positive gunshot residue result?” Muwaganya asked.
Dr Kisitu responded, “The spread of gunshot residues following a firearm discharge is random and uneven. Whether a component is detected depends on how sampling was conducted. You cannot expect to find identical compounds on every test item, even if they came from the same scene.”
At this point, the judge inquired, “Can gunshot residue be seen?” “No,” Dr Kisitu replied. “Gunshot residue cannot be seen with the naked eye. Only gunpowder can be seen, and even that requires visual aids like microscopes.”