Dissecting Katanga murder trial

Kabega, a former Deputy DPP, insisted that it doesn’t make sense for the court to grant lengthy adjournments when their client, Molly Katanga, who stands accused of pulling the trigger that ended her husband’s life on the night of November 2, is on remand.  

“Our client was denied bail, that’s why we aren’t happy with these adjournments. If she were not in prison, we wouldn’t have had a problem with these adjournments,” Kabega said.   

Although the trial has been going on for weeks, the witnesses presented so far have not tied Molly to the murder of her husband. Lawyers familiar with how the State executes murder cases told Monitor that prosecution always starts with strong witnesses. These make the case first and then, in the middle, the State fields weak witnesses before closing out with strong witnesses at the home straight.  

Tried, tested template
It is not cast in stone, but the aforesaid was the template the DPP used in the terrorism trial in which a dozen suspects were accused of masterminding the July 11,  2010  bombings in Kampala. The twin bombings at two separate Kampala suburbs left 76 people dead and many others injured. To swing the narrative in the prosecution’s favour, the DPP first presented star witnesses—Mohamoud Mugisha and Edris Nsubuga—who had been convicted having confessed to playing a role in the twin bombings that happened at Ethiopian Village Restaurant in Kabalagala and Kyadondo Rugby Grounds.  

Nsubuga’s evidence was particularly critical as he confessed to how, together with some of the suspects and people who would later turn into suicide bombers, he had scouted areas that they thought they would bomb. Nsubuga narrated how, together with a suicide bomber, they beat the security ring at Kyadondo Rugby Grounds to plant the bombs that eventually killed scores of people.

Such was the strength of his evidence that although defence lawyers spent days cross-examining him, they merely ended up going round in circles without inflicting a dent to his critical claims.  

In 2014, prosecution used the same template during the murder trial of Jackline Uwera Nsenga. The accused was eventually handed a 20-year jail sentence for murdering her husband, Juvenal Nsenga, after knocking him at their gate in Bugoloobi, Kampala.

The second prosecution witness in the Nsenga murder case was Innocent Bisangwa, an elder brother of Juvenal, whose evidence was to the effect that he knew that the couple’s relationship was on the rocks. Bisangwa, who was the best man to Juvenal during the wedding of the Nsengas, said the couple did not talk very easily and tended to avoid each other. He further revealed that they were living together in the same house, but in different rooms, although the husband provided for the family.

Bisangwa told the court that when Uwera fatally knocked her husband, she immediately called him, saying, given that he knew their marital relationship, the world was going to misunderstand her and think she tried to kill her husband.  

The third prosecution witness was Donat Kananura, Juvenal’s father. The evidence he adduced was that the relationship of the Nsengas was on the rocks and that in his last hours, in the hospital, his son made a dying declaration that the accused “had knocked him and not the gate.” This dying declaration that Kananura introduced proved critical in the end. 

“One of the factors to be considered together with the others discussed herein below, and, therefore, offering corroboration to the dying declaration, is that regarding the bad relationship between the accused and deceased in their marriage. Well corroborated evidence has been adduced to the satisfaction of the court by prosecution witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7 that the couple had lived an estranged life,” Justice Gaswaga adjudged.  

Different approach?
This template of landing a sucker punch at the start of a case hasn’t been followed by the prosecution in the Katanga murder case. In the aforementioned case, the first prosecution witness was Julius Muhwezi, a police physician. Mr Muhwezi’s evidence was that he examined suspects Charles Otai and George Amanyire and found that they were mentally in good condition.  

The second prosecution witness was police officer Samuel Musede, whose evidence was that in the aftermath of the shooting, he was called by one of Katanga’s daughters, Patricia Kakwanza. Ms Kakwanza, who stands accused of tampering with evidence, among other things, reportedly told Mr Musede that Henry had committed suicide by “shooting himself” at their house in Mbuya.

Upon reaching the house, the police officer claimed that he found George Amanyire, the Katanga household’s domestic worker, cleaning the room where Henry breathed his last. There was a pistol on the bed, Officer Musede told the court, whilst there was a cartridge beside the pistol and a live bullet.  

Perhaps to show that the crime scene had already been tampered with, Officer Musede claimed that by the time he got to the house, Henry’s body had already been cleaned. No blood was oozing out of the corpse.    

Peter Ogwang, another police officer (no relation to the junior Sports minister), testified as the third witness. Officer Ogwang claimed to have also visited the scene where Officer Musede was already doing examinations.  The total sum of Ogwang’s evidence was that Ms Kakwanza told him that the case should just be reported as an accident.

This claim attracted several questions from the defence lawyers, with Kabega asking Ogwang if at all he included the allegation that Kakwanza wanted the matter to be reported as an accident in his police statement, to which Officer Ogwang responded thus: “It is not in the statement.”

No margin of error 
Still following cross-examination from Kabega, Ogwang also conceded that he hadn’t included in his police statement his claim that he had told Kakwanza he couldn’t record the incident as an accident.  

Having admitted that he didn’t include in this statement that he talked to Kakwanza in the aftermath of the shooting, Kabega asked Ogwang if he lied at the time. The witness responded by saying he didn’t lie, but he just omitted certain details when he was recording his statement.  

The fourth prosecution witness was Timothy Nyangweso, Henry’s nephew. Nyangweso narrated the events of November 2, 2023. He said his mother, who was a sister of Henry, tried to call her brother, but she couldn’t get to him. After, he said his mother asked him to call Martha Nkwanzi, another daughter of the Katangas, who also stands accused of tampering with evidence.

Mr Nyangweso testified that when he called Nkwanzi, she answered after his third attempt to reach her. Nkwanzi reportedly told Nyangweso that her father was sleeping. However, when Nyangweso was cross-examined by Elison Karuhanga, one of the defence lawyers, and asked to redial the number that he claimed was Nkwanzi’s, it turned out to be wrong.

Mr Karuhanga further tabled the call logs that captured Nkwanzi’s phone activities. There was no trace of the witness’s phone number on November 2 as he had claimed. With that, Karuhanga told Nyangweso that the court should take it that he never called Nkwanzi.  

Pierre Kajura, the fifth prosecution witness, claimed to be Henry’s mechanic. He said the deceased had told him how his phone had been hacked. However, he could not tie this hacking to any of the accused persons.