The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X. This is the 3rd of a series on the case ahead of February 26th, when Justice Kania is expected to rule on whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case.
****
Continuation: Prosecution’s Case Against Mrs Katanga
iii) Gunshot Residue (GSR) Evidence
Relying on the evidence of PW12, Dr Jaffer Kisitu, a forensic chemist in the Department of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Explosives Analysis in the Directorate of Forensic Services in Uganda Police, the prosecution makes the case that GSR was found on Mrs Katanga’s hands and that this not only places her at the scene of the crime but also proves that she shot the firearm.
GSR analysis is about searching for and analysing the components formed post-firearm discharge.
Dr Kisitu was asked to analyse the following:
-Swabs D3 & D4, picked from the entry and exit wounds of the deceased during postmortem
-D5; swab picked from the muzzle of the gun
-M1; swab from the left hand of Molly Katanga
-M2 & M3; swabs from the right hand of Mrs Katanga.
Note: Swabs M1, 2 & 3 were apparently taken from A1 by PW18, Aisha Birungi, while A1 was in her hospital room, fully bandaged to the tip of her fingers.
-10-1: a cutting from a Kitenge dress found in the bedroom opposite the master bedroom. This is the bedroom where A1 was found drenched in a pool of her own blood.
-KP; A2’s dress. (She’s the elder Katanga daughter; was one of the first people to arrive at the scene and is also charged)
-A4’s shirts as well as CS1 and CS2; some lab test items.
The prosecution says that according to PW12, M1, M3, 10-1 and KP contained substance “NG”, a propellant in gunpowder, and DPA a stabiliser in gunpowder.
On the strength of that finding, shared in the GSR report, the prosecution then makes a bold leap and tells the judge that “finding conclusive evidence of compounds on items M1 and M3, which were swabs from A1’s hands, which compounds can only be formed after discharge of a firearm, provides conclusive evidence that she’s the one who fired the firearm, causing the powder to fall on her arms.”
They further say that “this evidence squarely placed her at the scene of crime as a participant” and that “it is no coincidence that the compounds found in M1 and M3 are the same as those found in the muzzle of the pistol (10-1) as well as the cuttings from A2’s dress”.
They then tell Lady Justice Kania that “the presence of those GSR components on the hands of A1 clearly points to her as the person who shot or discharged the firearm in issue.”
“This is clear evidence to prove her participation in the crime,” they added.
It might help to remember that during the cross-examination of this particular witness, PW12, by defence attorney Elison Karuhanga, a direct question was put to him as to whether the presence of GSR on an individual is incontrovertible proof that said individual fired the firearm.
Dr Jaffer Kisitu, without hesitation, said NO. It only proves that said individual was about 2 meters from a discharged firearm.
This view was echoed by the ballistics expert, Derrick Nasawali, the head of ballistics in the Ugandan police.
The prosecution, in their submissions, didn’t say why their conclusion on the import of GSR in identifying who discharged a firearm veered from their own expert witness testimony.
iv) Evidence of a Cut Finger
Mrs Katanga had a finger amputated. According to the defense, she was beaten so much by her late husband that her finger was severed, became gangrenous and had to be amputated.
The prosecution begged to differ.
They said, “My Lord, PW11, Derrick Nasawali, explained during cross-examination that when one pulls the trigger, there’s a backward force in response. That if you don’t grip the gun firmly, it can be dangerous. During re-explanation, PW11 further explained that the particular weapon has metallic parts, some of which are sharp. That when it is in action, the parts move at quite a high speed. So, if one hasn’t handled the gun in the right way, the fast-moving parts will injure her fingers…. ‘The evidence of a damaged left finger on A1 gives a strong inference that the damage was caused to her by the pistol during the process of firing.
Having painstakingly covered the major parts of the prosecution’s case, especially as it relates to scientific evidence, we are left with these two.
v) Conduct of the Accused
vi) Denying Police Access
They’re mainly all about “he said, she said” and as such, it might not be the best use of time to go over them line by line.
