The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in court, in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.
****
If you’ve followed this case long enough, you’ll know that the state previously successfully blocked the defense’s application for the court to visit the scene of the alleged crime at the Katanga residence at Chwa II Road in Mbuya.
The defense had then, through Peter Kabatsi, SC, applied to have court visit and see the room in which Mr Katanga died, which they said was still as intact as it had been when police took exhibits from it.
The prosecution objected, saying the scene had likely been tampered with. They provided no proof.
Fast forward to yesterday, the defense, through Jet Tumwebaze, brought their 5th witness to the stand. He is a professional photographer whose name, by order of court, should not be divulged.
He had earlier been to this court, but the prosecution objected to him testifying. Yesterday, as soon as the basic introductions had been done, the state, in an objection that spanned hours, moved the court to block viewing the pictures this witness took at the Katanga residence.
The pictures are said to depict in detail the state of the Katanga bedroom, blood splatter patterns, bullet hole up the ceiling, etc., as marked by the police scene of crime officer.
Invoking the Electronic Transactions Act, the state, through Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya, said that without complete inspection of the device which took the images and the device on which the images were stored, these images wouldn’t be properly authenticated.
The defense passionately pushed back, saying Muwaganya shouldn’t function as “a dam that blocks the flow of evidence to this court.”
They pointed to legal precedents in previous court cases as well as precedent in this very case where they said the state had presented photos and video evidence without being required to clear the bar they were now setting.
They said metadata on images is a good enough footprint that can be used to authenticate images and can be used to demonstrate whether images had been tampered with or not.
UgandaVsMollyKatanga: Prosecution successfully blocks viewing photographs taken at the Katanga residence.
If you’ve followed this case long enough, you’ll know that the state previously successfully blocked the defense’s application for the court to visit the scene of the… https://t.co/yYuDuD7IkZ pic.twitter.com/9pOrYVskMD
— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) September 5, 2026
Justice Kania took off a short time to consult the Court IT clerk in the courtroom IT booth, then adjourned the matter to prepare her ruling. It also served as a lunch break.
Upon resumption, Her Lordship ruled that although the evidence the defense intended to introduce passed the test of relevance, it could not, in the absence of the SSD and laptop onto which the images were downloaded, pass the authenticity test.
She said the purpose for which the images were taken dictated how stringent the test for authenticity could be.
DW5 had told Her Lordship that he had taken the images for purposes of court.
She said, “The threshold for authentication in court proceedings is high. Comparison with the original is the standard.
She said that metadata was “not enough to determine the authenticity to the standard required by court”.
The defense questioned the source of the evidence the learned trial judge relied upon to make that metadata decision, saying it was false. She said she consulted court IT staff, including two that work on ECCMIS.
They also asked what “an original image” is.
They asked for her ruling so they could get instructions. She said she would provide the same.
The court subsequently discharged the witness and adjourned the matter to September 15th when the defense is expected to present their 6th witness.
Note: The matter of admission of photographic evidence from the defense seems like a touchy subject for the state. They previously objected to the Orthopedic Surgeon (DW3) sharing images of Mrs Katanga’s injuries taken before, during and after surgery. The court agreed with them and the images were never viewed.
They also tried to block viewing of similar images of her injuries that they (the prosecution) had inadvertently, it appears, put on the court record. That wasn’t as successful.
