The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Prosecution attempts to walk back DNA claims
SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.Â
****
In a rather tense exchange (Frame 1 in X tweet bottom), prosecution seemed to walk back from their own submissions as to the import of DNA evidence in determining who fired the gun in this case. (See frames 2 and 3 for the prosecution submissions on this issue).
The defense asked whether this was the prosecution waving a white flag (issuing a nolle prosequi).
VerbatimÂ
Defense Attorney, Elison Karuhanga (EK) to the defense’s British DNA forensics expert (DW4): What conclusion would that DNA evidence have on the allegation that Molly Katanga shot and killed Henry Katanga?
Chief State Attorney, Jonathan Muwaganya (JM): My Lord, I do not remember that that is the question before this court. My Lord does he agree with us that that is not the question before this court?
EK: My Lord allow me to rephrase
Justice Kania: Mr Karuhanga…
EK: In the context of cellular DNA in this case, what can you tell us about the ability of that DNA to determine whether or not Molly Katanga shot Henry Katanga?
JM: My Lord, that has never been the question; we do not even remember whether the DNA expert addressed that question. When did that ever arise? That’s a misperception of the scientific input of this DNA forensic expert.
EK: My Lord I don’t know if that is a nolle prosequi….
Assistant DPP, Samali Wakooli: (Emphatic) No
EK: My Lord, that is the only question that this court is answering
JM: It’s a misperception
Justice Kania: Mr Karuhanga, are you trying to determine if the (DNA) results were to be regarded (the witness said the results should be totally disregarded) and what the context on this case is? (Paraphrased a bit)
EK: In the context of this case, Uganda Vs Molly Katanga where the accused is accused of having shot her husband….
DW4: In my opinion, the DNA findings do not help to address how the DNA got there, who got it there or when it was there and therefore cannot address the issue of who fired the gun.
Judge: I beg your pardon; the DNA findings do not address the question of?
DW4: How the DNA got there, who put the DNA there, when the DNA was deposited and therefore the DNA results cannot help to address the issue of whether or not Molly Katanga fired the pistol.
EK: My Lord I’m done and I’m happy to hand over the witness to the very kind and able hands of my learned friends.
Justice Kania: Miss (DW4), so the results do not even point to whether Mr Katanga shot himself?
DW4: The DNA results do not help address the pertinent question of who fired the gun at all. They’re meaningless in the context of this case.
EK: My Lord, maybe one last question: Miss (DW4), if we were to find out who fired that weapon, what scientific study should we have looked for?
DW4: The only way you could demonstrate contact with that firearm; obviously, the contact doesn’t necessarily mean that’s the individual who fired it; the only thing is fingerprints. DNA would never address how that DNA got there.
EK: Now my Lord I’m truly done
Judge: Finally?
EK: Finally, my Lord. I’m ready to hand over the witness to the kind hands of my learned friends.
Jet Tumwebaze: Those hands are not kind.
Assistant DPP, Samali Wakooli stands up and asks for a transcript and an adjournment in order to prepare for cross examination…..
Cross-examination starts July 14th at 9:30 am.
UgandaVsMollyKatanga
Prosecution attempts to walk back DNA claims
In a rather tense exchange (frame 1), prosecution seemed to walk back from their own submissions as to the import of DNA evidence in determining who fired the gun in this case. (See frames 2 and 3 for the… https://t.co/3ZyARRvg82 pic.twitter.com/XxplkSPDDi
— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) July 6, 2026
