🔴 Anthony Natif notes from Court: All set for cross examination of DNA expert DW4 next week

SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in court, in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.

****

This matter won’t proceed this week, the same having been adjourned to 14th July 2026 due to unavailability of the prosecution.

When court next convenes, it is expected that the state will start cross-examination of DW4, a British DNA forensic expert who has handed them a scientific mountain to climb.

In their “reply to defense submissions on no case to answer”, filed 28th Jan 2026 (see frames 1&2), the state-in trying to show that A1 participated in causing the death of her husband Henry Katanga-told Justice Rosette Kania to consider, among others, DNA evidence.

They told Her Lordship that the question of who caused the death of Mr Katanga “can only be answered by evidence showing the person who operated or used the fatal weapon, the gun, to shoot the deceased”.

Relying on a DNA forensic report by the Director of Forensics in Uganda Police, Andrew Mubiru, the state said that they found a mixed DNA profile on the trigger and trigger house, with Mrs Katanga being a major contributor while her husband and daughter were minor contributors. Ditto pistol magazine.

On the barrel of the gun, they also found her DNA, except this time, she was a minor contributor and the husband a major contributor.

They further told Her Lordship that on “examining a gun, there are three critical areas that are of interest to the analyst, namely; the loading (magazine), the cocking (slide or barrel), and the firing (trigger and trigger house). The only evidence to explain who loaded the gun is the presence of one’s DNA on the magazine. The pistol magazine is generally a hidden component, not exposed to external interferences. Presence of a third-party DNA on the magazine only speaks to that individual’s participation in the activity of loading the pistol. No one would load a gun except if they intend to use it to shoot.”

The defense on their part dismissed the prosecution’s submission as a misunderstanding of the science that underpins DNA evidence, arguing that the presence of DNA does not prove physical contact with a firearm.

They said even if the state’s argument were to be believed, it would mean that Mrs Katanga loaded the gun (her DNA dominant on the magazine), handed it to her husband to cock it (his DNA dominant on the cocking mechanism) who handed it back to her, sat down and waited to be shot in the head.

UgandaVsMollyKatanga

This matter won’t proceed this week; the same having been adjourned to 14th July 2026 due to unavailability of the prosecution.

When court next convenes, it is expected that the state will start cross examination of DW4, a British DNA forensic expert who… https://t.co/kbT6AbKpGJ pic.twitter.com/9D2HazstDm

— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) July 6, 2026

Anyway, in a February decision, Justice Kania agreed with the prosecution; reasoning that while the no case to answer stage didn’t require proof beyond reasonable doubt, Mrs Katanga had a duty to explain to the court how her DNA had ended up on the killer gun.

For this, A1 called on DW4, a British forensic expert of nearly 30 years, a pioneer in this science and a practitioner of global repute. She has plied her trade in the UK, helping the British government get its DNA forensics program up and running, done the same in Turkey, New Zealand, Oman and also works as an Honorary Lecturer at University College London.

She told Justice Kania that the report before her was meaningless and worthless in as far as it sought to answer the question of who touched or fired the gun.

She advised the court that only fingerprints found on the trigger could answer that. She said DNA can stay on a surface indefinitely and finding it doesn’t tell when or who put it there.

She said the fact that the gun was found on the bed the couple shared obviously meant that both their DNA would be there.

She then said the fact that A2 is A1’s biological child meant that half her DNA bore resemblance to A1’s hence misleading the analyst into thinking A1’s DNA was dominant, whereas not.

She said the technology police used couldn’t tease this apart.

In any case, she said people shed DNA more than others and as such, the issue of whose was dominant is misleading

She then pointed to gross contamination at the scene of crime and in the laboratory and told the Judge that any serious laboratory, let alone court couldn’t rely on those result