KAMPALA —The highly anticipated Katanga trial resumes today, with Police Chief Andrew Mubiru in the hot seat as defense lawyers continue to challenge his testimony. The credibility of the forensic lab and its director, Andrew Mubiru, has come under intense scrutiny.
Defense Counsel Ellison Karuhanga questioned Mubiru’s claims about the lab’s accreditation and independence, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony. Mubiru asserted that the lab was ISO accredited, but Karuhanga produced a letter from the Inspector General of Police indicating that the lab required approval to share Molly Katanga’s details with the court.
The defense team also questioned how the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions could charge Molly Katanga with murder in January 2024, claiming to have DNA results that weren’t available until April 30, 2024. This discrepancy suggests either a lack of coordination or a more sinister motive.
Mubiru’s credibility was further challenged when defense lawyer MacDusman Kabega referenced a Court of Appeal decision where Mubiru was accused of falsifying results. The issue of two conflicting police Form 17As remains unresolved.
The case revolves around the murder of businessman Henry Katanga, with DNA evidence linking Molly Katanga and her daughter Patricia to the crime scene. However, the defense team raised red flags regarding the DNA analysis. The DNA analysis revealed an unidentified fourth person’s genetic material on the firearm.
Counsel Ellison Karuhanga explained that DNA results showing four alleles indicate a mixture of at least two people, while five or six alleles suggest a mixture of at least three people. Mr. Mubiru agreed. The defense team questioned the use of an outdated Euroformics program version prone to errors.
The lack of lab certification and potential contamination of the murder weapon came under scrutiny. Mr. Mubiru admitted to personally swabbing DNA, using the sample swab, and disposing of it, raising concerns about evidence integrity.
As the trial resumes, the prosecution faces an uphill battle to redeem its case. The defense will likely continue to press Mr. Mubiru on his testimony, seeking clarity on the forensic lab’s credibility and potential irregularities. The outcome hinges on the court’s ability to discern fact from fiction and ensure justice is served.
