COURT NOTES: Molly Katanga case March 11, 2025

COURT NOTES MARCH 11, 2025 |  VIA @TonyNatif | After a lengthy hiatus, the trial of Molly Katanga and 4 others resumed yesterday at The High Court of Uganda (Criminal Division) before a new Judge, Her Lordship Rosette Comfort Kania, who also doubles as the newly appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission.

Because she had to appear before parliament for vetting for the later position, the trial was briefly held up as court waited for her to leave the legislative chamber and cross over to the High Court, a few minutes away.

After an hour’s wait, the court was informed that the Judge would be in soon

11:59 am: Deputy Registrar comes out. Says court will be resuming in 15 min. Enoch Kanene, PW10, a digital forensics expert, steps into the dock.

He’s scrolling through his laptop. Steps to the mic. Gives the prosecution team a thumbs up. Back to his laptop.

A gentleman shows up; he gives the judge’s laptop a once-over. Places it on the laptop stand. Pulls the mic closer. It is behind this stand where she will stand all afternoon. Not sure how she does it.

12:06 pm, bang on the door. Judge walks in.

“Good afternoon”, she says, “apologies for the late start. It was a result of some miscalculation on my part. Now we are here, we can proceed.”

The Assistant DPP stands; may it please you my Lord, my name is Wakholi Samali, I’m the Asst DPP appearing on behalf of the state, together with Jonathan Muwaganya, Chief State Attorney and Ms Anna Kiiza also Chief State Attorney.

On watching brief is Mr Mwesigwa Rukutana from Rukutana & co. advocates.

The accused are represented by @KAAdvocates led by Peter Kabatsi, Elison Karuhanga & Jet Tumwebaze.
They also have SC MacDusman Kabega.

My Lord, the assessors are in court.

The witness is in the stand.

Jonathan Muwaganya: We had already led him (the witness). He’s half way the testimony.

Judge: the witness is reminded that he’s still on oath?

Wakholi continues: The five accused persons..she looks around…my Lord A1 is appearing via Zoom from Luzira, the rest are in the dock.

12:11 pm. Interpreter takes the oath. He’s called Kyomuhendo Joel Nathan, a prison official. Reads his force number.

Wakholi: My Lord today is the first time we are appearing before you. It’s my humble request that the reasons for change of judge be put on record.

Judge: “The trial judge was changed because the one who was presiding in this matter was indisposed. The nature of his indisposition couldn’t be resolved quickly. That’s the reason for the change.”

After what seemed like a prolonged housekeeping, we were off to the races.

In a session that went long into the evening with only a 30 minute lunch break, court heard from the digital forensics expert as to what kind of communication happened between October 31st 2023 and the fateful day of the passing of Mr Henry Katanga on the morning of 2nd November 2023.

Mr Kanene explained how he acquired mobile phones of Mr and Mrs Katanga, their children Patricia Kakwanzi, Martha Katanga, medical officer Charles Otai, house support George Amanyire as well as Denise Nayebare a niece of the Katangas.

He also told court about his retrieval of evidence from CCTV devices, flash disc etc.

Of note were images and videos retrieved from the phone of the house support, George Amanyire which showed a bedroom floor & walls filled with blood. It also had selfie images of Mr Amanyire with a blood stained shirt. It is unclear as to whose blood this was but going back to the testimony of the Head of forensics at Police, Mr Andrew Mubiru, he indicated that all blood samples taken on the floor, sink, ceiling, bathroom, door handles etc belonged to Molly Katanga. Henry Katanga’s blood had been found on the bed and on the mosquito net. The later being combined with brain matter.

Later in the proceedings, the prosecution prayed to admit all exhibits, but the defense objected on grounds that the chain of custody couldn’t be ascertained. The Judge ruled for the prosecution.

Mr Karuhanga continues: The only reason they want him to tender these exhibits is to avoid this very court from examining the chain of custody. My Lord, there’s a precedent in this very case where the forensics expert sought to tender in exhibits. For the very reasons here, this…

— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) March 12, 2025

****

Summary of the proceedings

Muwaganya (JM): My Lord, under mobile forensics exhibits marked P, OC, NE were not successfully extracted due to enhanced user encryption.
Exhibits marked A3, A4, A2a1 and G weren’t successfully extracted due to incompatibility with the operating system.

JM: My Lord I pray to tender Exhibits A, X, 13-1, exhibits A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, exhibits P, N, NE, G, ND, 4C, AM and exhibit 8

Elison Karuhanga (EK): My Lord, these items weren’t recovered by this witness. He can’t speak as to how they were recovered. While we would be happy to have them identified, we would need the person who recovered them to submit them as exhibits.
We have no problem having them tendered in for ID purposes. Even the admissibility of his evidence is pending. We have a precedent of this court in this very case.
The Judge said the issue of admissibility will be addressed in the final decision.
Judge: that will be addressed in the final decision.

EK: Much obliged my Lord but on the broader issue, the chain of custody has to be maintained.
JM: My Lord we indeed agree that it is important to maintain the chain of custody and that’s why we maintain that the witness on the stand is the right one to tender this evidence because he was the final user of these exhibits. The process of recovery speaks to the evidential value in the recovered items. Those officers simply speak to exhibit X recovered from person Y so that evidence speaks to a particular user but the process of tendering has more to deal with the chain of handling. Who was the end user that dealt with the exhibit? My Lord, the end user is the proper person to present the exhibit for tendering in court and has been demonstrated my Lord, the witness was the end user.

After extraction, he sealed the exhibits and it is him who has unsealed them in the presence of court.

He is at the tail end of the chain of handling those exhibits and so he is, in our opinion the proper witness to have them tendered. The process of recovery will be traversed for evidential value. My Lord we pray that the items are admitted as exhibits.

In any case, my Lord finally, it would be a travesty of justice to admit the report that is derived from the exhibits and reject the tendering of exhibits which are the primary source of the information in the report. We so pray.

Judge: what do the exhibit guidelines say?

JM: My Lord unfortunately we don’t have the exhibit guidelines but if you give us a minute, we shall refer to them.

The prosecution, hurdles together, quickly refers to the guidelines.

Minutes pass.

Judge looks at JM.

JM: My Lord I find guideline 25 relates to tendering of exhibits and under 25(2), it is provided that exhibits may, during hearing be tendered through any of the following:
1) Maker or author
2) Custodian

My Lord, the custodian here relates to the final user. My Lord, the final person that dealt with the exhibits and sealed them is the final person that had custody of those exhibits in the legal meaning of this section.
But still the position of this provision can be any person with sufficient knowledge of the exhibits. My Lord, no person can have more knowledge than the expert that received, analyzed, understood and presented them.

EK: With the greatest of respect, my learned friend is not giving the correct position of the law.
Objective 3 of the guidelines (3 clause 2). Objective is to ensure the chain of custody. First of all my Lord, my learned friend cites section 25 (2) b. That the exhibits can be tendered by the custodian of the exhibit. My Lord in his evidence, Mr Kanene if I recorded him correctly, Mr Kanene said after examination, I sealed the exhibits and they were signed out by the IO. My Lord, the analyst is not the custodian of the exhibits.
Refers to Muzeyi Vs Uganda
The Chain of custody is a chain. Who received it? We don’t know from this witness where one single exhibit was recovered from

Mr Karuhanga continues: The only reason they want him to tender these exhibits is to avoid this very court from examining the chain of custody. My Lord, there’s a precedent in this very case where the forensics expert sought to tender in exhibits. For the very reasons here, this court held that they could only be tendered for identification.

He then reads regulation 26(3). The questions are put to the witness to explain the chain of custody of the exhibits. My Lord, the chain is not maintained by going to the end; the chain is maintained from the beginning.

Judge: in which case? (Asking about the precedent Mr Karuhanga referred to)
Karuhanga: in this very case, Uganda Vs Molly Katanga. Only individuals with direct knowledge of collection and handling of exhibits can render them in.
The admissibility hinges on ability to chronologically explain chain of custody.

The evidence whose evidence of recovery hasn’t been established cannot be tendered, he continues.

Judge: the regulations define chain of custody. Refers to the chronological documentation that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence.
Karuhanga: My Lord, this witness hasn’t demonstrated to us the chronological and careful documentation of the evidence recovered. The person who collected this evidence should come and there’s no reason that person shouldn’t come. Once that person comes, we shall concede but the procedure has to be followed.

JM: My Lord, his understanding of chain of custody is off

Judge: redefines it. Has this witness stated the chronological chain?

JM: My Lord, we actually thought ….laughs…it would be an obvious matter. The witness is the final person presenting this evidence.

Judge: what does signing off by the IO mean?

JM: My lord, if it so necessitates, the witness will clarify. The last person in custody of these exhibits is the laboratory. These exhibits never left the laboratory.

Judge: (talking to the defense) the report has been accepted. If it has been accepted then everything is accepted.

She then says “let me see the report.”

“Let’s see the envelope. Exhibit recovered by Santos and sealed by Emmanuel”

Defense, prosecution and the Judge have a back and forth over chain of custody.

Judge: who receives the evidence in the store? Can we bring the control technician?

Karuhanga: The report is authored by three people, the analyst, the reviewer and the control technician. Those are part of the record. My lord, the challenge we are going to have is this witness will say this morning, he signed them out. Then technically he’s the final user.
We say the control technician should come, he should come and speak to them. PW10 is the end user and it wasn’t fully in his custody.
Mr Karuhanga continues: chain of custody is governed by law. The record should show who was in control of the exhibit. Here, a new person has been introduced; an exhibit control officer.

Wakholi: we request that we are given an opportunity to present the other witnesses. This witness has knowledge of these exhibits.

Judge: the guidelines say any person with sufficient knowledge of the exhibits can tender and this person has knowledge of the exhibits. So he can tender.

Defense and Prosecution in unison: Much obliged.

JM to Kenene: proceed
K: My Lord, the next analysis is call data analysis marked A up to G. Converted and analyzed. The findings were limited to direct calls, location and frequency of calls, date and time.
JM: and what was the timeframe of your analysis?
K: 31st October-2nd Nov 2023.
JM: as you may realize my Lord, this is the second part and before the witness came, he came here sick. My Lord, before the court resumed, he requested that court allows him off. He would like to take off time to go receive his treatment.

Judge: we don’t want the witness to collapse.
JM: My Lord, he isn’t badly off but ….

Judge This matter is adjourned to 12th March 2025 at 9:30 am

Time: 16:47 pm.

*****

SOURCE: Notes by Anthony Natif on X @TonyNatif

****

RELATED STORY

Katanga trial resumes amid questions over prosecution’s evidence