The chaotic beginning of the Katanga murder trial has caused delays in critical decisions, such as Ms. Molly Katanga’s request for video conferencing.
Highlights from the first day
The trial started with Molly Katanga pleading not guilty to the murder of her husband, Henry Katanga. Her daughters, Martha Nkwanzi and Patricia Kankwanzi, also pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges related to destroying evidence.
Additionally, domestic worker George Amanyire and nurse Charles Otai, who are co-accused, pleaded not guilty to being accessories to the murder.
In an unexpected twist, Amanyire requested the trial be conducted in Rutoro, causing a brief disruption. Judge Muwata swiftly resolved the issue, paving the way for further courtroom drama.
Request for Amendment by the Prosecution
Led by Assistant DPP SamalieWakooli, the prosecution sought to amend charges six months into the process. This request came after the defense raised issues regarding the destruction of evidence.
Defense lawyer MacDusmanKabega demanded specific details to adequately prepare their case, emphasizing that this matter should have been resolved during pre-trial motions from March to June 28, when the defense repeatedly requested access to evidence and documents.
Despite these demands, Judge Muwata allowed the prosecution to withhold certain evidence from the defense team.
Assistant DPP Wakooli requested an amendment to the charge sheet under Section 50(2) of the Trial and Indictment Act, which allows for modifications to defective indictments.
Although similar requests had previously failed, such as in the Patrick Byansi murder trial in 2014, Judge Muwata granted Wakooli’s request, citing the early stage of the trial.
Defense Responds
Defence attorneys argued that Wakooli should testify to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence. On January 22, Wakooli signed a charge sheet asserting that Ms. Molly Katanga’s DNA had been discovered on the murder weapon.
However, the DNA report provided is dated April 30, which contradicts this assertion.
Defense lawyer Bruce Musinguzi emphasized this discrepancy, suggesting possible prosecutorial bias.
“My Lord, we received a DNA report on May 3, 2024. According to the DNA report on page 36, it was created on April 30, 2024,” according to Musinguzi. “The prosecution took the lead on this initiative, and on January 22, 2024, they signed and drafted the indictment. Therefore, even if it hadn’t been prepared, we would need Wakooli to come and tell us where she got it.”
Judge Muwata must now decide whether to permit Wakooli to testify or to address the prosecution’s case’s inconsistencies.
Public opinion
The trial has sparked significant online public interest, with many expressing their perspectives and concerns regarding the proceedings.
To delve deeper into public sentiment, our reporter contacted political analyst Charles Rwomushana.
Rwomushana questioned the nature of the evidence purportedly destroyed, which Wakooli was expected to present in court
“What evidence was destroyed that the prosecution, led by Ms. Wakooli, intends to present to the court?” Rwomushana inquired.
He stressed the requirement for evidence beyond DNA alone to establish guilt: “To attribute the act of pulling the trigger to Ms. Katanga, the prosecution must present not just DNA but also evidence of gunpowder on her body or clothing.”
Rwomushana also highlighted the narrow focus of the investigation: “From the beginning, the investigation concentrated solely on Ms. Katanga. There should have been deliberate efforts to try and eliminate other possibilities.
As the trial resumes, all eyes will be on Judge Muwata’s next decisions.