Anthony Natif Notes From Court - Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others June 12/2026

The high-profile murder trial of businesswoman Molly Katanga and four co-accused continues before the High Court of Uganda, with the defence presenting its second expert witness. This development underscores the critical role of expert testimony in complex criminal adjudications, particularly in cases relying heavily on forensic and circumstantial evidence. The defence's current expert, an orthopedic surgeon, has testified that Ms. Katanga's injuries were consistent with "defense injuries," directly challenging the prosecution's narrative and previous forensic findings. This ongoing legal battle highlights the intricate interplay between scientific evidence, statutory interpretation, and judicial evaluation in determining criminal liability under Ugandan law, offering significant insights for legal practitioners on managing and scrutinizing expert opinions.

The High Court of Uganda is currently seized with the high-stakes murder trial of *Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others*, a case that has captivated national attention since the death of businessman Henry Katanga in November 2023. The proceedings, presided over by Lady Justice Rosette Comfort Kania, have entered a crucial phase with the defence presenting its third witness, who is the second expert called to testify. This particular stage of the trial, focusing on expert evidence, is pivotal as it directly confronts the scientific and circumstantial foundations laid by the prosecution.

The case involves Molly Katanga, charged with the murder of her husband, alongside her daughters Patricia Kakwanza and Martha Nkwazi Katanga, a nursing officer Charles Otai, and a domestic worker George Amanyire, who face charges related to destroying evidence and being accessories after the fact of murder. The prosecution has advanced a theory of a calculated killing over wealth and property, relying on forensic evidence such as gunshot residue on Ms. Katanga's hands and DNA on the alleged murder weapon, coupled with the "doctrine of last seen" and her post-incident conduct. The defence, however, is systematically challenging these assertions, with expert testimony forming a cornerstone of their strategy to introduce alternative explanations for the deceased's death and Ms. Katanga's injuries.

This article delves into the significance of expert evidence within Uganda's criminal justice system, as exemplified by the *Katanga* trial. It examines the statutory framework governing such testimony, the challenges inherent in its evaluation, and the practical implications for legal professionals navigating cases where scientific and technical opinions are central to establishing guilt or innocence. The ongoing testimony serves as a live illustration of how expert opinions can reshape the evidentiary landscape and potentially sway judicial outcomes.

Criminal proceedings in Uganda are primarily governed by the Penal Code Act, Cap 120, and the Evidence Act, Cap 6. Murder, as defined under Section 188 of the Penal Code Act, constitutes the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought," with Section 189 prescribing the punishment. The High Court of Uganda possesses unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal matters, meaning it can hear any case of any magnitude, including capital offences like murder.

The admissibility and weight of expert evidence are regulated by the Evidence Act, Cap 6. While the specific section number for expert opinion is often referred to as Section 43, the Act generally provides for the admission of opinions from persons specially skilled in fields such as foreign law, science, art, or handwriting, when the court requires such information to form a judgment upon a point. Crucially, expert evidence is inherently considered "opinion" rather than "fact," and its acceptance into evidence requires rigorous judicial scrutiny to attain subjective factual status. This distinction is vital, as courts must carefully evaluate the expert's qualifications, the methodology employed, and the factual basis of their opinion.

Historically, Ugandan courts have acknowledged the powerful yet potentially misleading nature of expert evidence, recognising the risk of disproportionate influence due to its perceived 'privileged quality.' Consequently, the jurisprudence emphasizes that expert opinions are not binding on the court but serve as aids in reaching a decision, subject to corroboration or rebuttal by other evidence. The *Katanga* trial, with its reliance on forensic pathologists, ballistic experts, and now an orthopedic surgeon, exemplifies the contemporary application of these principles in a high-profile criminal case.

The *Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others* trial has become a significant arena for testing the robustness of expert evidence in Ugandan jurisprudence. The defence's first expert witness, Dr. Sylvester Onzivua, a forensic pathologist, directly challenged the prosecution's forensic findings regarding the bullet trajectory and the nature of the wounds sustained by the deceased, Henry Katanga. Dr. Onzivua posited that the evidence was more consistent with suicide than homicide, a stark contradiction to the prosecution's theory that Justice Kania had initially found sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Ms. Katanga. This highlights the inherent tension when conflicting expert opinions are presented, requiring the court to meticulously weigh the credibility and scientific basis of each.

The recent testimony of the second defence expert, an orthopedic surgeon, further complicates the evidentiary landscape. This witness, who treated Molly Katanga, described her injuries as consistent with "defense injuries"—wounds typically sustained when a person instinctively shields themselves from an attack. This testimony directly supports the defence's narrative that Ms. Katanga was a victim of an assault, rather than the perpetrator, and seeks to explain the presence of her injuries, which the prosecution had previously linked to the firing of the weapon. The admissibility of medical photographs related to these injuries also led to a heated dispute, resulting in a temporary suspension of proceedings, underscoring the contentious nature of such evidence.

The challenges in evaluating expert evidence are well-documented in Ugandan law. As noted in various scholarly works, courts must master complex scientific concepts and guard against the "privileged quality" of expert testimony that could lead to miscarriages of justice. The *Katanga* trial illustrates this, with the defence's experts refuting the prosecution's interpretation of ballistics and injury patterns. The defence, in its earlier "no case to answer" submissions, had already questioned the reliability of the prosecution's DNA and Gunshot Residue (GSR) evidence, citing inconsistencies in the collection and analysis of samples. This ongoing battle of experts necessitates that Justice Kania, as the trier of fact, critically assesses the methodologies, qualifications, and potential biases of each expert, rather than merely accepting their conclusions.

Comparative legal perspectives often reveal similar challenges. In common law jurisdictions, the principles of *Daubert* or *Frye* standards are often employed to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence, focusing on reliability and general acceptance within the scientific community. While Uganda does not explicitly adopt these specific tests, the underlying judicial scrutiny of an expert's qualifications and the scientific validity of their methods aligns with the spirit of ensuring reliable evidence. The *Katanga* case underscores the need for clear guidelines and judicial training to effectively navigate the complexities of modern forensic science in criminal trials.

The ongoing *Uganda Vs Molly Katanga and Others* trial serves as a compelling case study on the pivotal role and inherent complexities of expert evidence in criminal proceedings. For legal practitioners, this case highlights the absolute necessity of thorough preparation and strategic deployment of expert witnesses, as well as robust cross-examination techniques to challenge opposing expert opinions. The ability to effectively present, defend, and scrutinize scientific and technical evidence can be the decisive factor in establishing or refuting criminal liability, particularly in cases built on circumstantial evidence.

Practitioners must remain vigilant regarding the evolving standards for expert testimony under the Evidence Act, Cap 6, and be prepared to articulate the scientific basis and limitations of any expert opinion presented. The judicial walkout amidst disputes over medical photographs further underscores the procedural and substantive challenges that can arise when expert evidence is introduced. As the *Katanga* trial progresses, the court's ultimate evaluation of these conflicting expert testimonies will provide crucial guidance on the weight and persuasiveness accorded to such evidence, shaping future litigation strategies in Uganda's criminal justice landscape. All eyes will be on Justice Kania's final determination, which will undoubtedly contribute significantly to the jurisprudence on expert evidence.