Saturday , December 6 2025
Home / NEWS / đź”´ Anthony Natif notes from Court: Prosecution case enters final stretch

đź”´ Anthony Natif notes from Court: Prosecution case enters final stretch

The calm before the storm. Court set to resume for final stretch

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

****

There’s an air of nervous excitement in the Criminal Division of the High Court as this murder trial presided over by Lady Justice Rosette Comfort Kania enters its final stretch. Well, at least the prosecution case, that is.

Last week, the defense finalized the cross-examination of PW23 and the prosecution also did a quick re-exam that barely lasted three hours. (We shall bring you a comprehensive report of PW23’s 5-week court appearance).

Background

For context, it might help to know that PW23’s testimony had several contested issues, and it’s these, it appears, that compelled the judge to task the prosecution to summon the next two witnesses.

One such issue was on the blood spatter analysis.

At the tail end of her evidence-in-chief, PW23, DSP Bibiana Akong told the court that Charles Otai, the medical officer who rushed to the scene to offer first aid, came with a bag, which, according to her, contained blood. It is this blood that she suspects was splashed all over the couple’s bedroom to create an impression that Mrs Katanga had been violently beaten by her husband and her blood splashed all over the room, including the ceiling.

The defence took serious issue with this and pointed to a blood spatter analysis report which, according to them, indicated that there had been violence in the room, and from the police experts’ analysis, it is this violence that led to the spilling and splashing of blood all over the room.

PW23 initially said she didn’t know about the report. When pressed, she said she knew about it but hadn’t read it. Attempts by the defense to have her read it and be cross-examined on it were met with fierce objections from the prosecution.

They said that while she was in charge of the investigation and thus the custodian of the file, she wasn’t an expert in blood spatter analysis and therefore couldn’t be cross-examined on the report.

The defense, seemingly exasperated, said the prosecution was suppressing evidence.

Peter Kabatsi, a former DPP in two countries (you read that right), at one point stood up and told Chief State Prosecutor Jonathan Muwaganya that suppressing evidence was fatal to a criminal trial.

Anyway, the presiding judge in her wisdom called both sides to order and said the court was inviting the blood spatter analysis expert as a court witness, and both sides were welcome to ask questions.

The prosecution then said the defense was jumping the gun, and in fact, they were going to invite the witness, and if they didn’t, the defense was at liberty to invite them.

The second issue seems to have been the lack of alignment of evidence given by PW23 with a statement that another police officer who worked under her, Detective David Beteise, made.

This was on whether fingerprints and nail clippings were ever taken from the late Henry Katanga.

PW23 said these were never taken.

The defense seemed to suggest that they were taken and tested, and the results didn’t favour the prosecution’s case, so they were never reported.

According to defense attorney MacDusman Kabega, Beteise’s statement and the pathologist’s report indicate that these fingerprints were taken not only at the Katanga residence before taking the body to the mortuary but that they were also taken at the mortuary.

Accusations of evidence suppression flew around. They were settled with the promise that Detective Beteise was to be called.

Anyway, after re-exam, court went into some housekeeping.

Initially, the Judge had indicated she was to go on leave, and the prosecution said they wouldn’t be available for the whole of December because they were taking leave.

Justice Kania asked Muwaganya as to how many witnesses they had left. He answered, “2 to 4 but in any case, not more than 4.”

The judge came back to them and said she had reconsidered her leave and implored both sides to try and close one side of the case before the end of year. (See video in frame 1)

So here we are…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *