🔴 Anthony Natif notes from Court: Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others 13/August/2025

UgandaVsMollyKatanga: Invisible Man Remains Invisible

SPECIAL REPORT | ANTHONY NATIF | As recorded in court, in the case Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and adapted from @TonyNatif on X.

****

A prosecution witness tells the court to ignore prosecution-provided video footage and trust his word instead. A legal equivalent of: “trust me, bro”!

I’m not making it up, there’s video (see X link)

On Wednesday, the defense, through MacDusman Kabega, finalized their cross-examination of prosecution witness 21 (PW21), Emmanuel Ogwang and as is the practice, the prosecution had another bite at the cherry in a re-examination, parts of which left a lot of court attendees scratching their heads.

Earlier, defense lawyer Jet Tumwebaze had put it to the witness, a Scene of Crime Officer-who called himself “the custodian of evidence”—that he was never at the scene of crime, the Katanga residence along Chwa II road in Mbuya.

The witness had told the court that he had gone to the Katanga residence along Chwa II road in Mbuya, a few hours after the death of Henry Katanga on the morning of 2/Nov/2023.

He said he’d gone there with other senior Uganda Police officers from around 11 am and left at 1:52 pm after collecting evidence and seeing it off on a police truck.

There was, however, one problem: the prosecution had—through PW 10—one AIP Enoch Kanene, a digital forensics examiner, handed the defense a treasure trove of video footage from the Katanga residence.

The defense, from the look of things, combed through every minute of footage, and when this witness claimed he had been at the Katanga residence and led his juniors in collecting crime scene evidence, they didn’t hesitate to call him an “invisible man” who “had nothing to do with this case but was brought in to fill up gaps.”

They went ahead to prove this by playing nearly two hours of video footage, on separate days, and dared the prosecution to counter them with video proof that their guy was indeed at the crime scene as he alleged.

The prosecution countered by claiming they didn’t have all this footage and wanted the defense’s gadgets in order to prepare for re-exam.

Defense attorney Elison Karuhanga shot back and said the prosecution was the source of these videos, so it was odd that they were instead asking the defense to hand over theirs.

Anyway, a compromise was brokered with the intervention of the judge, and it was agreed that the prosecution would liaise with the defense and files would be transferred to them.

They didn’t pick up the files and instead told court at the start of re-exam that:  “we didn’t get chance to be availed with the other videos but I’ll nonetheless ask general questions that arose…”

This prompted a pushback from the defense to which the Chief State Attorney cheekily responded, “My Lord, I’m not going there. We never got but we’ll just do our best.”

He then asked his witness, “Mr. Ogwang, the defense showed you selected clips of video recordings at the scene and it was alleged that you were never there at the scene on the 2nd of November 2023. What do you have to tell court about that allegation?”

Ogwang, speaking with all the confidence of an emasculated bull, answered, “My Lord, the videos played in court are just…errr…are clips which do not show the full events that happened on 2nd November 2023. But the truth of all is that I was there and played the role that I testified about in court.”

It’s impossible to tell whether the nervous looking Mr Ogwang himself believed what he was telling Lady Justice Rosette Comfort Kania. His hands were shifty, his breath deep and measured and his gaze wandering about in court.

A deer in the headlights might look more confident.

A visibly angry Mr Jet Tumwebaze had, two days earlier, called the whole idea that a senior police officer could come to court, claim to have been at the scene of crime, stand in the witness stand and accuse his client, Molly Katanga, of murder; “a scandal of unimaginable proportions”

On the evidence of IP Emmanuel Ogwang’s showing, it’s easy to understand Tumwebaze’s exasperation.

It was surreal to witness.

UgandaVsMollyKatanga cont’d

Before re-exam by Chief State Attorney, Jonathan Muwaganya, defense lawyer MacDusman Kabega spent a few hours deconstructing Inspector of Police Emmanuel Ogwang’s evidence.

Some issues that stood out during a methodical cross exam, routinely… https://t.co/DK49TippRr pic.twitter.com/zFQeSprVQd

— Anthony Natif (@TonyNatif) August 14, 2025

Issues that stood out

Before re-examination by Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya, defense lawyer MacDusman Kabega spent a few hours deconstructing Inspector of Police Emmanuel Ogwang’s evidence.

Some issues that stood out during a methodical cross-examination, routinely interrupted by a series of objections, were:

1-Two Uganda forensics laboratories claim to have had the killer gun at the same time.

The ballistics lab is said to have had the gun between 3rd to 13th Nov 2023. This overlaps with the time the DNA forensics lab claims to have had the gun.

There are two police Form 17s with different components of the gun going to ballistics and DNA labs.

It might help to recall that when the Uganda Police ballistics expert gave testimony, he said that gunshot residue analysis takes precedence over anything else because the traces are “sensitive” and easily disappear.

The Director of Forensics in the Uganda Police, who was in charge of DNA analysis in a lab that the defense said was only licensed to do paternity DNA analysis, said that DNA analysis takes precedence because the samples can be easily contaminated and traces lost.

This scene of crime officer didn’t seem to know which of the laboratories actually had the gun, and even re-examination couldn’t seem to provide clarity.

The gun is the only exhibit that appears on two PF17As on the same day, raising questions as to whether the DNA lab really conducted analysis on it.

The ballistics expert once informed the court that their methods are destructive, and thus the exhibit is largely of no DNA evidentiary value after they’re done with it.

2-While PF17As indicated that Uganda Police submitted the gun to the ballistics and DNA labs, Ogwang informed the court that actually what was sent to these labs were different components of the gun.

The ballistics expert is said to have received all components of a disassembled gun, while the DNA lab received the shell of the gun without a magazine, no bullet in the chamber, no cartridge casing, etc.

3-Further on issues gun-related, there was a swab named D-5 from the muzzle of the gun that only appears for the first and only time in PE 97.

In the SOCO report, it isn’t mentioned; its genesis isn’t known, and neither is the retriever. It’s evidence that just appeared & vanished as fast as it came.

Earlier in the case, the DNA forensics expert informed the court that he’d taken personal swabs of the weapon and used them up. He left no backup, so the court just had to trust him.

Uganda Police  officers seem to have mastered the art of “trust me, bro”.

4-There were swabs D-1,2,3 and 4 that were never mentioned in the post-mortem report issued by Dr Richard Ambayo but somehow appeared in ballistics and DNA reports tendered in court.

Swab 1 and 2 are said to have been taken to the DNA lab, while 3 & 4 were taken to the ballistics lab for GSR testing.

These swabs claimed to have been taken from the “bullet entry wound in the left ear of the Late Henry Katanga.

Only problem: Katanga had only one bullet hole ABOVE the left ear. There’s no wound in the left ear.

Kabega who had handed a post mortem picture of the late Katanga’s left side (of the head) -and asked Ogwang to show him a wound in the ear, put it to him that he concocted evidence.

Kabega then got Ogwang to admit that some of the evidence that PF17As indicated to have been submitted hadn’t been recovered at the time the forms were filled.

It appears that just like the DPP’s office and Uganda Police officers were also acting in the prophetic realm.

4 -Biological samples: police said the bedsheet marked Exhibit 3 at the scene was re-marked D9.

It was apparently air-dried and remarked on while at the police station.

Exhibits D6, 7, and 8 also had biological samples; none of them were air-dried, and none were re-marked.

Kabega then asked PW21 whether there’s any reason as to why he didn’t lift fingerprints from the gun. He said he wanted to preserve DNA evidence.

Kabega: Mr Ogwang, I’m done with you!!

******

RELATED REPORT

🔴 Anthony Natif notes from Court: Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others 11/August/2025 B