The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Kampala, Uganda | NEWS CORRESPONDENT | The trial of Molly Katanga took a corporate turn in the High Court yesterday, as prosecutors shifted their focus from forensic evidence to the financial operations of the business empire she co-founded with her late husband, Henry Katanga.
In a session dominated by balance sheets rather than ballistics, Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya led a pointed cross-examination aimed at establishing a timeline of company control in the immediate aftermath of the businessman’s death.
The prosecution produced company records and shareholding structures, suggesting that following her husband’s death, Mrs Katanga acted quickly to take full control of the businesses.
Under pressure to explain the introduction of her son and daughter into corporate leadership roles, Molly Katanga framed the decision as a matter of operational survival.
“The businesses could not be left to drift,” she testified, adding that suppliers, creditors, and staff depended on the continuity of operations. She maintained that the move was an effort to keep the “machinery running” rather than a reordering of ownership.
A central pillar of the prosecution’s questioning was the suggestion of intermeddling with the deceased’s estate. Muwaganya put it to the witness that she had effectively secured control before the legal transition of the estate was settled.
However, Molly Katanga flatly rejected this characterization. She insisted that while “management” had been adjusted to ensure stability, the legal “title” and ownership structure of the entities remained unchanged, with no shares being transferred.
The exchange grew particularly sharp when the prosecution turned to the movement of funds. Muwaganya alleged that Molly Katanga had withdrawn all available funds from several bank accounts following her husband’s death.
In a rebuttal, the widow stated that these were not accounts she had suddenly accessed in widowhood. She told the court that she had been the primary operator of the accounts since their inception.
“My late husband never operated those accounts,” she stated, arguing that settling business debts and managing the financial side of their joint ventures had always been her established role.
The matter was adjourned to April 23.
