Court orders Prosecution to disclose evidence in Katanga Trial

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT |  In a significant development in the high-profile Katanga trial, the court has issued a mixed ruling regarding the disclosure of evidence by the prosecution. Judge Isaac Muwata directed the prosecution to share certain digital evidence with the defense, including CCTV footage and mobile phone data seized from the residence of the late businessman Henry Katanga. However, the judge postponed his decision on whether this evidence will ultimately be admissible in court.

The ruling comes after days of intense arguments between the defense and prosecution teams, with defense attorneys Elison Karuhanga and McDusman Kabega accusing the prosecution of withholding critical evidence. The defense argued that this selective disclosure compromises the fairness of the trial and violates established legal protocols. They emphasized that a fair trial requires all relevant evidence to be available to both parties.

Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya responded by asserting that certain evidence on the accused persons’ phones contained private information. He argued that without written consent from each accused person, disclosing these details could infringe upon privacy rights.

Despite the judge’s order for the prosecution to disclose evidence, he deferred the decision on its admissibility to a later stage in the trial. This means that while the defense will gain access to critical evidence, it remains uncertain if this evidence will be considered in the final judgment. Legal experts suggest this delayed decision could be a strategic move, allowing the court to carefully evaluate the implications of the evidence without prematurely influencing the case’s direction.

The defense team responded by questioning the prosecution’s concerns over privacy, labeling it a “bold” stance. Karuhanga argued that withholding key information on the grounds of privacy undermines the trial’s integrity, stating, “There can be no fairness when crucial evidence isn’t disclosed before a trial.”

As both sides prepare for the next round of arguments, the case’s complexity continues to grow, with Judge Muwata’s future ruling on evidence admissibility expected to play a pivotal role in the trial’s outcome. Judge Muwata’s decision could set a precedent for future cases involving digital evidence and privacy considerations.