Katanga murder trial: CCTV, phone data examiner testifies

However, Mr Kanene, who was the 10th prosecution witness, was not allowed by the defence lawyers to read and play out his findings. Our reporters Anthony Wesaka & Juliet Kigongo attended the court session and now bring the excerpts below:

At 10:24am, presiding judge Isaac Muwata walks into the courtroom. Court clerk calls for Henry Katanga murder case file. The four suspects present in the court walk to the dock.

Assistant DPP Samali

Wakooli: May it please you, your honour, I am appearing for the prosecution together with Mr Jonathan Muwaganya. The accused persons are being represented by counsels Peter Kabatsi, Jet Tumwabaze, Elison Karuhanga, Zulaika Kasaijja and Hanat Nabagala.

My lord, all three assessors are in court and all the accused are present, with A1 (Molly Katanga) appearing via Zoom. This matter is coming for further hearing.

Judge: How many witnesses do we have?

Wakooli:One

Jonathan Muwaganya (Chief State Attorney): My lord, this should be PW10 (prosecution witness 10). May you tell the court your religion?

Witness:My lord I’m a Christian. Court clerk helps the witness, Enoch Kanene, to take oath.

Muwaganya: What work do you do?

Witness:I’m a digital forensics examiner, deployed to cyber-crimes of the Uganda Police Force

Muwaganya: What are your roles as a digital forensics examiner?

Witness:My roles are to collect digital evidence, extract, analyse from networks and digital devices such as computers, mobile phones, and security cameras (CCTV), after analysis, prepare a report detailing the findings and opinion and also give an expert opinion and providing expert witness testimony in court if summoned.

Muwaganya:How do you get to do these roles?

Witness: My lord, it’s by request letters and police form 17A.

Muwaganya:You are familiar with the case before court, was any request made to your lab?

Witness: Yes, it was a letter and a police form 17A.

Muwaganya: Who was the requesting authority or entity?

Witness: My lord, for this particular case, the request came from Jinja Road Police Station and it was signed by the investigating officer.

Muwaganya:Are you in a position to identify the request letter?

Witness: Yes, my lord.

Muwaganya:How are you able to identify the request letter?

Witness:If has a letterhead of Jinja Road Police Station, it also bears the receiving stamp of the Directorate of Forensics Services and it was assigned a lab number Muwaganya: How many request letters?

Witness: My lord, if I may recall, they were about two letters

Muwaganya: Are you in a position to identify a document with a pick stick?

Witness:Yes

Muwaganya: You talked about police form 17A, are you able to identify them? 

: Yes, my lord, it bears the case reference of Jinja Road.

Muwaganya: How are you in a position to identify the bearer?

Witness:The Jinja Road reference, they are also received at the Directorate of Forensic Services and a number of exhibits were listed.

Muwaganya:What else apart from the list?

Witness:The lab number was assigned

Muwaganya: I want you to look at the document, particularly, the one marked with a pink sticker. Are you in a position to identify them?

Witness:Yes my lord, I am.

Muwaganya: How do you recognise them, what are they?

Witness: This is a request letter, they are two in number.

Muwaganya: Let’s begin with the one on top.

Witness:It’s dated November 2, 2023. It bears a CID reference, which is CID13/ VOL16/ 137/ 2023.

Muwaganya:Does it bear a police case reference number?

Witness:Yes, Vide Jinja Road Police Station CRB 1070/2023

Muwaganya:In short, what was this request for? What was it requesting you to do?

Witness: It was requesting me to inspect, extract, analyse and prepare a report in relation to CCTV footage at the premises of the late Katanga Henry, at Plot 50 Chwa, Mbuya, Nakawa Division, to facilitate the ongoing investigations.

Muwaganya: Let’s go to the next document

Witness:It’s also a request letter dated November 2, 2023.

Muwaganya: Case reference number?

Witness: CID 13 /VOL1X/142/2023

Muwaganya: Case reference?

Witness: My lord, its Jinja Road Police Station CRB 1070/2023

Muwaganya: What was the request requiring you to do what?

Witness: My lord, the request was to inspect, extract, analyse the recovered phones and prepare a report to facilitate the ongoing investigations.

Muwaganya: Thank you, you talked about police forms 17A on your bundle of folders and I think they are marked green, tell court if you recognise them. Witness: Yes, my lord, I do. These are police forms 17A.

Muwaganya: Let’s begin with the first one, what is the first police form 17A dated?

Witness: My lord, it’s dated 3rd November, 2023.

Muwaganya: When was it received in your lab?

Witness: My lord, it was received on November 3, 2023, it was assigned a lab number DFS/ CCU/511/2023.

Muwaganya: How about the police reference number?

Witness: Is Jinja Road Police Station CRB1070/2023.

Muwaganya: What did the request contain?

Witness: It contained three exhibits. Exhibit A was a Samsung folding smartphone with a grey back cover and the MIEI of this phone is 3549496171361418 recovered from Katanga Martha [deceased’s daughter].

Muwaganya: What was the second exhibit?

Witness: My lord, the second exhibit marked X was a white flash disc, Digirich of 8 GB, VCUT recovered on the side drawer of the bed, in the master bedroom at the crime scene. My lord, the third exhibit was marked as 13- 1 and described as a grey Samsung smartphone, recovered from the lady’s [Molly] handbag.

Muwaganya: Mr Kanene, what request was required?

Witness: My lord, what was required here was to examine exhibits marked A and 13-1, whether they contained any relevant information pertaining to the alleged case of murder by shooting. The second examination my lord, required, to extract and examine exhibit X, whether it contained any information that prompted the commission of this offence. The third examination required to carry out any other relevant information to support the case.

Muwaganya: Tell court how exhibits of this nature are received at your lab.

Witness: Requests are received through the investigating officer and are received on police form 17A, and letters are accompanied by physical exhibits if any at the gateway, which is the forensics, all the documents and the physical exhibits are checked, verified and after confirming that the physical exhibits have submitted, tally with the descriptions as listed on police form 17A, they are registered and assigned alab number.

Muwaganya: There after?

Witness: The chain of custody log is opened, which tracks the movement of exhibits from the chain officer to the person at the gateway who received and assigned a lab number. After the exhibits and documents have been accepted, they are then moved to a specific lab where examination is required and in this case, they were submitted to the cybercrime department that deals with digital evidence. They were received by the evidence control technician. My lord after they are received, they are brought to the head of the cybercrimes department to assign the action officer.

Muwaganya: Apart from the physical verification, did you do any other thing?

Witness: I made sure that all the documents were complete as per the request letters, taking reference police form 17A and the court orders instructing me to carry out the necessary examinations.

Muwaganya: Are you in a position to identify the court orders?

Witness: Yes, they bear the stamp of the receiving officer at the directorate of forensics services and the lab number.

Muwaganya: Mr Kanene proceed to documents with a blue sticker, do you recognise those documents?

Witness: They are court orders. The first one is dated November 10, 2023. It was authorising me to inspect, extract and prepare a report in respect of CCTV footage held at the premises of late Katanga residence on Plot 50 Chwa Road, Mbuya, Nakawa Division.

Muwaganya:How about the second court order, do you recognise it?

Witness: Yes, I do, it’s dated November 22, 2023. It authorised me to inspect and extract, analyse and prepare a report in relation to exhibits, mobile phones.

Muwaganya: After that, what did you do?

Witness: My lord, I carried out necessary examinations and authored a report as per my findings and expert opinion.

Muwaganya: Are you in a position to identify the report you authored?

Witness: Yes my lord. Every page of the report was signed by the examiner, hash 10, also recognises the signature of the reviewer who is hash 9 and the chain of custody. It also bears a seal of department of cyber-crime. It has two forwarding letters to the director of forensic services and the director forwarded back to the requesting entity. At this time, the prosecution prepares to present the report by playing its video in court by the witness.

Elison Karuhanga: My lord, I’m seeking the indulgence of this court. We intend at this point to raise an objection for this witness to continue giving evidence on his report. My lord our objection is founded on express provisions of the law, in particularly, the Computer Misuse Act, the Evidence Act, the Police Act and the Constitution.

My lord, in so far, it’s the evidence of this witness that he examined phones, computer discs, an IPad, a video recorder, charger, it’s our submission that the continued receipt of evidence would be illegal, improper and unconstitutional. My lord, the thrust of our submission is based on Section 28 of the Computer Misuse Act, which is now Section 31, Cap 96 in the new laws. My lord with your indulgence, I will briefly read section 31 of the Computer Misuse Act.

The 3rd, 6th and 9th November, 2023 and he has two court orders for November 10 and 22. So first of all, his orders are not search warrants but his orders were issued after the items were seized and presented to his lab. We can only be taken only by the search warrant. My lord, we submit that the court cannot allow evidence when it’s not clear who recovered the evidence, when they were recovered and on what authority they were recovered. The witness wants to go into the findings of the report without showing us one search certificate or any document by the accused granting the consent.

My lord, the witness is clear that the court orders were directed to him so they cannot be confused with search warrants. My lord, it’s not even clear that the court that issued the orders was aware the items were illegally seized. The witness has said that the police first seized the exhibits, gave them to him and gave orders to extract information from them, contrary to the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act.

My lord, there is a law that governs how this witness should interact with the electronic gadgets of the citizens of this country, it’s not something that you do willingly, follow the law. So my lord, in summary, the presumption to announce and a fair hearing and the very mischief the Computer Misuse Act, the Evidence Act and the Police Act, sought to stop unfairness. There is no right for the prosecution to trial by an ambush. These are not only statutory protections but under Article 44 of the Constitution, that right is non-derogable, there is no excuse, there are no exceptions. My lord in the premises, we pray that this witness is discharged and he goes back with his report.

Wakooli: My lord, this is the first trial I have seen an advocate violate his own client’s rights to a speedy hearing by bringing up flimsy excuses but that notwithstanding, we request for an adjournment for two hours and we come back with a response.

Judge: Let’s adjourn to tomorrow [today, November 7].