Defence Blocks Police Testimony in Katanga Murder Trial Over Prejudice

Led by Elison Karuhanga, the team representing Ms Molly Katanga and her co-accused argued that key evidence from seized digital devices was improperly collected without a valid search warrant, violating the accused's right to a fair trial and risking severe prejudice.

By Dan Ayebare

The High Court was embroiled in a stormy hearing this afternoon during the murder trial of city businessman Henry Katanga, after defence lawyers objected to a police witness’s testimony.

The defence team cited illegalities and procedural misconduct in evidence collection.

Led by Elison Karuhanga, the team representing Ms Molly Katanga and her co-accused argued that key evidence from seized digital devices was improperly collected without a valid search warrant, violating the accused's right to a fair trial and risking severe prejudice.

Mr Karuhanga’s objection rested on alleged breaches under Uganda’s Computer Misuse Act, Police Act, Evidence Act, and the Constitution, describing the police's handling of digital devices—including phones, computers, and an iPad belonging to the accused—as "illegal, improper, and unconstitutional."

He argued that these violations compromised the trial’s integrity and prejudiced the accused by presenting incomplete and selectively disclosed evidence.

Controversial Evidence Collection

The disputed evidence includes data from mobile devices seized by police between November 3 and 6, 2023. The defense argued that the devices had been analysed without a search warrant.

Defence attorneys cited Section 31, subsections 1 to 3 of the Computer Misuse Act (2023), which mandates that electronic devices may only be searched or seized under a valid court-issued warrant.

Subsection 8 of the same act requires any seized items to be returned within 72 hours unless a time extension has been legally obtained.

According to the defense, police failed to provide any valid search warrant, nor had they returned the devices within the stipulated time or sought an authorized extension, rendering the evidence collection "a violation of both the law and the accused’s rights," according to Karuhanga.

He highlighted the implications of such mishandling, arguing that the police actions undermined the legitimacy of the collected evidence and exposed the accused to prejudicial treatment.

Mr Karuhanga also flagged the lack of a proper search certificate as an indication that standard procedures were not followed, increasing the risk of evidence tampering or manipulation.

“What we have here is take it, image it, and keep it for a year,” he argued, calling the collection process “an illegality deeply prejudicial to the accused person.”

Furthermore, Karuhanga pointed out that the defense team had repeatedly requested disclosure from the prosecution, citing letters dated May 29 and June 13, 2023.

The defense specifically asked the prosecution to share any digital data or footage evidence intended for use in court, but received no response.

Mr Karuhanga argued that this lack of transparency was a deliberate attempt to prejudice the defense, depriving them of a fair opportunity to prepare.

Under Section 163 of the Evidence Act, any evidence not disclosed to the defense prior to trial is typically barred from use in court, a point the defense emphasized.

“The prosecution’s silence on our disclosure requests only reinforces our concerns of bias and manipulation,” Karuhanga asserted, adding that the defense found it “fishy” that crucial evidence was withheld despite their formal requests.

This failure to provide the evidence in its raw form violated Article 28 of Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees every defendant the right to a fair hearing and adequate time to prepare a defense.

The prosecution, confronted by the defense’s arguments, asked the court to defer the case until tomorrow, Thursday, to prepare a rebuttal.

This request was met with skepticism by the defence, who argued it didn’t require a lot of time to respond.

They rather wanted the issue settled on the spot. But Judge Isaac Muwata granted the prosecution its prayer to prepare a rebuttal.

Ms Molly Katanga is accused of shooting her husband Henry Katanga dead from their family home in Mbuya on November 2 last year.

The businesswoman, who was critically injured on the fateful night, has been attending the hearing from Luzira prison via video link.

She is jointly charged with her two daughters Patricia Kakwanzi and Martha Nkwanzi as well as the family's domestic servant George Amanyire and a nurse Charles Otai.

They have all denied the charges.