Molly Katanga Lawyers Object To Prosecutor

The daughters of the late Henry Katanga were slapped with charges of being accessories after the commission of murder at the High Court in Kampala.

Patrica Kakwanzi and Martha Nkwanzi pleaded not guilty to the charge in which their mother, Molly Katanga is accused of murdering her husband Henry Katanga.   

Henry Katanga, then a businessperson in Kampala died on 2 November 2023 of gunshots. It is suspected that Molly Katanga pulled the trigger that ended his life. 

On the second day of the trial, a team of eight lawyers led by renowned criminal lawyer, Macdusman Kabega and the former solicitor General, Peter Kabatsi put up a spirited fight in court in a bid to fight off one of the lead prosecutors from the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP).

The Defense team, which includes Bruce Musinguzi, Elison Karuhanga, and John Jet Tumwebaze demanded that the lead prosecutor, Samalie Wakooli step –down from the case. 

The lawyers told the court presided over by Justice Isaac Muwata that Samalie Wakooli is likely to be part of the defense witnesses.  

The proceedings were characterized by legal gymnastics as the opposing sides presented their case. The day in court opened with the prosecution’s side applying to amend the charges sheet to include Henry Katanga’s daughters as accessories after the commission of murder. 

The offense of murder is punishable by the maximum penalty of deathas provided for under section 189 of the Penal Code Act.     

The prosecution states that Patrica Kakwanzi and Martha Nkwanzi well knowing that their mother Molly Katanga had murdered their father helped her to escape justice by tampering with valuable evidence that was necessary for judicial proceedings. 

They face additional charges of being an accessory after the fact of murder just like their co-accused, George Amanyire the Shamba boy, and Charles Otai, the Nursing Officer. George Amanyire and Charles Otai were charged with destroying evidence. 

The judge allowed the amendment of the indictment thereby allowing all the accused persons to plead afresh to the charges, which they denied.    

It was at that moment that the defense team asked the Court to order the lead prosecutor Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, Samalie Wakooli to step –down.  

Wakooli who was in the Company of State Attorneys Jonathan Muwaganya and Annah Kiiza had summoned two witnesses for today and was ready to start the trial. 

However, before the first prosecution witness was called to the stand, the defense lawyers shot up to ask Wakooli to excuse herself from leading the witness.

Molly Katanga’s defense contended that Wakooli prepared and signed the summary of evidence (indictment) sending the accused to face trial in the High Court. The said indictment was dated Jan 22, 2024.   Wakooli reportedly alluded to the contents of a DNA expert report as one of the pieces of evidence to be relied on by the prosecution.       

The lawyers however want Wakooli to answer why the said  DNA report which states that fingerprints found on that gun were predominantly from the hands of Molly Katanga was prepared and dated April  30th, 2024, when its alleged contents were already talked about by Wakooli in the summary of evidence, before the report was made.      

The lawyers stated that they felt that was a prosecutorial bias and that Wakooli should testify and explain where she got the facts and details of the DNA report which never existed at the time of committal.

 It’s our contention that there is a great likelihood that there could have been a prosecutorial bias which resulted in a prosecutorial fallacy in this case. Therefore, my Lord, we would need Samalie Wakooli as a witness to come and explain where she got the facts of paragraph 32 of the summary of the indictment, yet my Lord at that time the DNA report did not exist,” said Musinguzi.    

The lawyers argued that the Professional Conduct of Conduct for lawyers states that no advocate shall appear in the case where he or she knows she will be requested to appear as a witness to give evidence whether verbally or in a contentious matter.

They told the court that they had raised this matter with her in vain. They therefore demanded that she recuse herself from the matter and prepare herself to appear as a witness.

However, in response, the Prosecution asked Justice Muwata to dismiss the application on grounds that it was intended to merely delay the trial.

Chief state prosecutor Jonathan Muwaganya told the court that the summary of the indictment is not evidence but mere information to enable the accused to prepare for trial if witnesses were called to prove the contents of the indictment.      

Muwaganya has added that investigations were progressive adding that there is no law barring prosecutors from relying on preliminary reports pending the authoring of final reports. He argued that the information that Wakooli included in the indictment was contained in the preliminary report.    

Muwaganya argued that the defense side seemed to know where he was going, and it was divulging evidence not yet formally presented to the court, which would highly prejudice the Court.

He argued that if Lawyer Musinguzi was having issues with evidential value, he could not just pass on the evidence to the Court.   

He said Musinguzi cannot speak on behalf of those technical reports that he was giving out to the court in a casual manner when an expert has not explained those reports.

Muwaganya said this is a criminal prosecution, where evidence cannot be passed on carelessly without going through the authors. He objected to the lawyer speaking for a document when he was not a witness. Before that, the Court appointed Mutonyi Sharon, Tabu Consolate, and Simon Okong as assessors.  

The Judge asked each of the accused persons whether they knew any of the appointed assessors and if they had any reasons as to why they should work as assessors.  The accused persons answered in the negative.

Later the assessors took oath and they were told that they would listen to the evidence and give an opinion to the court on whether to convict or acquit the accused persons at the end of the trial.

The Judge asked each of the accused persons whether they knew any of the appointed assessors and if they had any reasons as to why they should work as assessors.  The accused persons answered in the negative.

Later the assessors took oath and they were told that they would listen to the evidence and give an opinion to the court on whether to convict or acquit the accused persons at the end of the trial. 

The Judge informed them that their opinion is not binding adding that the court can go ahead to make its own independent decision.

Justice Muwata reserved his ruling on whether to order Wakooli to step down from the case for July 9, 2024.

***URN***

Post Views: 1,016