The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Cross Examination of Orthopedic Surgeon Abruptly Ends on a Contentious Note; Matter Resumes in September.
SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in court, in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.
****
The prosecution met a witness who refused to answer to whatever he didn’t personally do but repeatedly invited the state to ask him about what he personally did in his capacity as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who treated Mrs Katanga’s gruesome injuries in November 2023.
At the end of a fractious session that often looked like a class on different fields of medicine, no orthopaedic-specific questions had been asked; DW3 had stood by his vow to not answer questions outside his expertise; Jonathan Muwaganya had threatened to give up this cross-examination altogether; accusations that DW3 was never at IHK that morning in the first place were flying around; and the judge had had enough.
She walked out, but not before asking the defense to verify the court order that the state used to access the doctor’s call data records that seemed to place him in about 6 different places in a matter of minutes, including the Namuwongo area where IHK is.
But before all that, right at the bell, the state tried to get DW3 to speak to the authenticity of all hospital records in court.
He told them that he could only speak to that which he wrote or did, and any questions as to the rest should be directed to the hospital administrators and other professionals.
JM: Doctor, from where we ended, you as an officer coming from IHK, can you vouch for the authenticity of medical documents from your hospital attributed to Mrs Molly Katanga?
DW3: I can only vouch for where I wrote or where I recorded. I think that’s the duty of the administrator of the hospital.
JM: We understood you to say that you reviewed the patient several times, and the review entails reading the patient file. Correct?
DW3: Not necessarily
JM: Did you read the patient’s file on your review sessions?
DW3: My Lord, when you go to see a patient… Mr Muwaganya interrupts: “did you read the file?!”
DW3: Can I answer the question, my Lord?
Judge: Did you read or did you not?
DW3: I read the relevant part I want to see, if I need to read. Okay? But if I’m with the ward doctor, sometimes I don’t have to go through all the details every time I go there. (Note: any medical person who has been on a consultant’s ward rounds is familiar with what DW3 was saying)
JM: Thank you, but now tell court whether you read.
Jet Tumwebaze: My Lord, the witness has answered. He said, ‘I read the relevant parts I want to see.’
UgandaVsMollyKatanga
Cross Examination of Orthopedic Surgeon Abruptly Ends on a Contentious Note; Matter Resumes in September.
The prosecution met a witness who refused to answer to whatever he didn’t personally do; but repeatedly invited the state to ask him about what he… https://t.co/8cnRGFoezq pic.twitter.com/XXuRPIA35T
— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) July 24, 2026
Judge: Did you read the relevant parts?
DW3: Yes. I read the relevant parts I want to see as a surgeon.
Judge: So, in this case, you read the relevant parts?
DW3: Yes, to my profession
JM: Doctor, what relevant parts?
DW3: I’m an orthopaedic surgeon, and my role in this case was to handle the orthopaedic management of the patient
JM: (My Lord) May he be advised to answer questions?
DW3: That’s what I’m answering
Judge: Mr Muwaganya, please ask your question again
JM: So in this case, what relevant parts do you believe to have read?
DW3: We managed the patient as a team. There’s an anaesthesiology team, the neurosurgeon and the orthopedic surgeon
Judge: So for you as the orthopedic surgeon, you read the parts relating to…
DW3: X-rays, and I saw and I reviewed the patient, and that’s what I’ll confidently address.
And that set the tone for the rest of the cross-examination, with the witness refusing to speak to patient vitals during surgery, issues of consent, etc., instead requesting that he be asked about what he did.
This seemed to anger the state, with Muwaganya at one point threatening to abandon the exercise
The session ended with the state using DW3’s call data records to point out to him that he wasn’t at IHK at the time he said he was in theatre operating on A1.
The defense furiously pushed back, questioning the documents brought by the state, waving them around with furious derision and wondering how one could be in 6 places within minutes.
Justice Kania told them to go verify…
VIDEO
