The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Cross Examination of Mrs Katanga’s Second Expert Witness
SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.Â
****
In a rather interesting show of professional confidence, the second defense expert witness invited prosecution to ask him about the technical aspects of what he did, reminding them he was a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who shouldn’t be bogged down by administrative questions that can ably be answered by other professionals.
I’ll explain:
Yesterday in the afternoon, the prosecution started cross-examination of Dr DW3XXX (name withheld by order of court), a consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon who told the court he operated on Mrs Katanga’s orthopaedic injuries on 2/Nov/2023 and that she was directly under his care till she was discharged.
In an examination-in-chief led by defense attorney, Elison Karuhanga, the witness cast doubts on whether Mrs Katanga could lift “ANYTHING at all”, let alone a nearly 1 kg Zastava CZ99 Compact, the gun whose single bullet to the head ended Mr Henry Katanga’s life.
He told Justice Rosette Comfort Kania that “from what I have as an experienced trauma surgeon and the nature of injuries I saw on this patient, especially in the limbs, but also from the fact that she’s significantly bleeding, one of the things you get when you’ve just gotten that trauma is compromise of function, because that’s the first thing, especially as far as grasping is concerned, and of course you get extreme pain when you try to move your fingers in that situation. So, it compromises your capacity to perform coordinated functions and lift anything.”
During cross-examination led by Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya, DW3XXX invited the state to ask him about the orthopaedic procedures he performed instead of asking him about what other people did or about the schedules and timelines of hospital admissions, which he insisted were within the purview of the hospital administrator.
He told Muwaganya: “in my opinion, I’m not here to answer administrative questions; I’m here to answer technical orthopedic questions” (Video in frame 1)
He also took off time to educate the court as to the role of orthopaedic surgeons, clarifying that while the head has bones and teeth, orthopaedic surgeons aren’t the professionals concerned with that but instead handle any bone-related ailments from the neck downwards.
To this, the judge said, “I’ve learnt something from the doctor.” (Video in frame 2)
UgandaVsMollyKatanga: Cross Examination of Mrs Katanga’s Second Expert Witness
In a rather interesting show of professional confidence, the second defense expert witness invited prosecution to ask him about the technical aspects of what he did, reminding them he was a… https://t.co/zNTn6qmQGu pic.twitter.com/kUertYoaUx
— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) June 25, 2026
When Mr Muwaganya tried to point out what he thought was a discrepancy in the time Mrs Katanga’s X-ray had been taken with the time the doctor said he had reviewed her X-rays and taken her to the theatre, the doctor pushed back forcefully.
Using an X-ray report from the radiologist, Mr Muwaganya pointed at 9:34 am on the report and referred to it as the time Mrs Katanga had been taken to the radiology department for the X-ray.
He then put it to the witness (who had earlier said he didn’t recall seeing this specific X-ray report but having seen the actual X-rays, had made his diagnosis) that the reason he was non-committal about seeing the X-ray report was that the reporting time would then contradict the timeline the doctor had given the court, including the time Mrs Katanga was taken to the theatre.
The doctor simply told him that he was misrepresenting “reporting time”.
It didn’t mean what Mr Muwaganya thought it meant, and it instead meant the time the report was written.
He said it could even be the next day, depending on the radiologists’ schedule. That doesn’t in any way mean the X-ray was taken the next day. (Video in Frame 3)
Summarily, yesterday’s session seemed to be geared towards finding DW3XXX in some sort of inconsistency more than it was about finding fault with his technical work.
Cross-examination of this particular witness continues on Tuesday next week because his busy schedule of teaching, researching and patient care only allows him that day.
