On August 20, the High court, presided over by Justice Isaac Muwata, resumed the trial of Molly Katanga and four co-accused individuals charged with the murder of Henry Katanga.
This resumption followed a court vacation that had begun on July 15, 2024. Before the vacation, six witnesses had been cross-examined, with a seventh witness, Naomi Nyangweso, the sister of the deceased, scheduled to testify. However, her testimony was delayed due to a language barrier and the unavailability of a Runyankore translator at short notice.
On the day the court was expected to adjourn, technical difficulties disrupted the proceedings. A failure in the network and internet connection prevented the accused, Molly Katanga, from joining the courtroom via the Zoom application. Citing the legal requirement for the accused to be present during their trial, Justice Muwata adjourned the session to the following day.
The trial resumed on August 21, with testimony from Dr Richard Ambayo, a pathologist who had performed the post-mortem examination on the deceased.
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION
The post-mortem report, as explained by pathologist Ambayo, was requested by Bugolobi police station under Detective Sergeant David Beteise. The deceased's body exhibited a 17cm linear surgical scar on the left buttock and a 3cm by 4cm traumatic scar on the right leg. The body was wrapped in a pink mattress cover, with the upper half naked, and wore two pairs of boxer shorts. The deceased had short hair with some grey areas and a black-grey moustache.
Rigor mortis was fully set, and hypostasis was observed on the back. Clotted blood was found on the face, shoulders and arms, and blood was oozing from the nose and left ear. A star-shaped gunshot entry wound was located on the left temporal area of the scalp, with an exit wound on the right meatus. The bullet caused significant fractures and lacerations to the skull and brain, ultimately exiting through the Petrous bone.
No defensive injuries were noted, and the internal organs, except for a fatty liver indicating liver disease, were normal. Samples for DNA profiling and toxicology tests were taken. The post-mortem concluded on November 2, 2023, with no bullets or fragments recovered from the body.
The indictment stated that on November 1, 2023, Henry and Molly Katanga had dinner and retired to their room. The next morning, a strange noise was heard from their bedroom, followed by what sounded like a struggle and a loud blast. When their daughters arrived, they found Henry in a pool of blood. Molly was assisted downstairs and taken to the hospital.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The witness, Dr Richard Ambayo, a 48-year-old medical doctor with the Uganda Police Force, currently serves in the directorate of Police Health Services at Mulago City Mortuary, a position he has held since 2019, though officially employed in 2021. During the prosecution's examination, it was revealed that Dr Ambayo holds a master's degree in Medicine and Pathology from Makerere University, obtained in 2020, and a bachelor's degree in Medicine and Surgery from Gulu University.
He has been practicing since 2010 and is a master's student specializing in medico-legal examinations, including post-mortem examinations and the examination of victims and perpetrators of crimes.
Dr Ambayo explained the process involved in handling cases at the mortuary, stating, "We receive dead bodies at the mortuary brought in by police, accompanied by Police Form 48A and attached to it is 48B."
Form 48A is a police request for a post-mortem examination, while Form 48B is where the medical doctor's report is documented. The post-mortem request is identified by a PM (post-mortem) number, generated using a serial number sequence that runs from the beginning of the year to the end.
During the trial, Counsel Jonathan Muwaganya from the prosecution presented a form to Dr.Ambayo, asking him to identify it. Dr Ambayo confirmed it as Police Form 48A, which was a request for the postmortem of Henry Katanga, bearing the PM number PM3338/2020. The request for the post-mortem examination was made on November 2, 2023.
When asked by the prosecution if he could identify the report he made, Dr Ambayo responded, "Yes. It must carry the names of the doctors that participated in the post-mortem and the stamp of the facility."
He was then presented with a document, which he examined thoroughly and confirmed as the post-mortem report on Form 48B from Katanga's post-mortem.
"It has my names and signature plus those of my colleague, Male Mutumba, and a KCCA mortuary stamp," he noted.
Dr Ambayo explained that the post-mortem examination was conducted jointly by two doctors, who examined the body, took notes, and compiled a report in the presence of AIP Eenyuthi Vonirick, the investigator in charge. The cause of death, as determined by the doctors, was a gunshot to the head.
Dr Ambayo testified that the gunshot injuries indicated a near-contact range, with the gun muzzle being about the length of a standard ruler from the body before the shooting. Photographs taken during the autopsy were presented to Dr Ambayo for identification. These included images of the brain on a silver platter in the mortuary, the upper view of the body, the mattress cover, clotted blood on parts of the body, and clear pictures of the entry and exit wounds.
As Dr Ambayo shuffled through the pictures, explaining their contents to the judge, the accused's daughters, who were standing in the dock, looked away. Molly Katanga, visible on the screen, lowered her head and averted her eyes from the gruesome images of her husband's lifeless body with a hole through his head.
The prosecution then applied to tender the police forms and the eight photographs as evidence, which the judge admitted before the defense took the floor.
DEFENSE
Defense counsel, Elison Karuhanga, began by requesting the judge to ensure that each photo was well marked for clarity. He then asked the doctor to clarify a few points, stating, "One of your roles is to carry out a medicolegal post-mortem, correct? Would I be right to suggest that the term 'medicolegal examination' can also mean 'forensic post-mortem'? Would I be correct to call a forensic post-mortem a medical examination of a de- ceased person's body to determine the manner and time of death?"
The witness affirmed the correctness of the first two questions but partially agreed with the last. He explained that "forensic" is not only limited to determining the cause and manner of death but also allows for deducing the time of death, known as the post-mortem interval, the time between death and the autopsy.
Defense counsel then proceeded to question the witness's qualifications to conduct a forensic post-mortem. Referring to authoritative texts available at Makerere's Albert Cook Library, such as Simpson's Forensic Medicine (11th edition) and Gunshot Wounds, which the witness deemed outdated, the defense asked whether the witness agreed with the statement on page 16 of Simpson's Forensic Medicine: "The performance of an autopsy should ideally only be carried out by a pathologist trained in the techniques. However, it is appreciated that the ideal situation is impractical in many places due to lack of personnel, facilities, and finances. A poorly performed autopsy may be worse than no autopsy at all."
The witness responded, "That is the author's opinion, not mine." The defense then pressed the witness to confirm whether he had specialized training in forensic pathology. The witness replied, "My lord, I'm an expert."
When the judge instructed him to answer with a simple "yes" or "no" due to the nature of cross-examination, the witness added, "I did training as a course unit in my master's, and I refer you to the police form, which requires a medical officer, and I am above that position."
During the examination, it was revealed that the witness neither holds a degree in forensic pathology nor has completed a fellowship in the field. Additionally, he was unaware of whether any doctors in the country possessed such qualifications. The defense handed the witness a book, directing him to page 311, which discussed who should perform an autopsy. The court then adjourned for a one-hour break.
Upon returning from the lunch break, the defense resumed its questioning of the witness, focusing on the post-mortem report. Defense counsel asked the witness to confirm that Form 48B was a complete report by the witness, which he affirmed. The defense then referred the doctor to page one of the report, asking him to confirm that his conclusions must be supported by the available literature on gunshot wounds, a point the witness agreed with.
The defense further noted that while the witness may not agree with certain authors' opinions, he did agree that the terms used in his report are also defined in much of the literature on gunshot wounds, to which the witness conceded.
The defense then directed the witness to an authoritative text that outlined how to identify gunshot wounds as entry or exit wounds. The book stated that there are specific characteristics of a gunshot entry wound that are well-documented, both in literature and in general medical practice, a point the witness also confirmed.
The defense then asked the witness to confirm that he had described both wounds on the left and right sides of the deceased's head as stellate-shaped, which the witness did. However, the defense pointed out that there was nothing in the witness's report distinguishing the right wound from the left, except for the size of the wounds.
This led to a tense exchange between defense counsel Elison Karuhanga and the pathologist, Dr Ambayo. When asked to show the court where he had recorded any differences between the wounds in his report, the witness was unable to find any.
The defense continued by questioning the witness on the general principle that entry wounds are typically smaller than exit wounds. The witness agreed but added that this is not always the case, as factors such as the gun's range also play a role.
When pressed further on whether his statements were supported by medical literature, the witness initially replied, "I don't know," but later confirmed that his assertions were indeed consistent with medical writing. The defense then highlighted several details that were omitted from the post-mortem report, such as beveling—a classic indicator of gunshot entry and exit wounds.
According to the defense, the beveling's shape is often considered an indicator of the direction of fire, yet this was not mentioned in the witness's report. When asked why this important detail was omitted, the witness requested a soda and a seat, explaining that he was exhausted from standing. He then stated that there was no beveling because the gun was fired at close range, though there were comminuted fractures at the point of entry.
The defense also questioned the witness about the term "blackening" (blood clotting around gunshot wounds), which the witness was familiar with. The defense pointed out that the witness reported no blackening, yet a photograph of the deceased presented to the judge clearly showed a black clot in the right ear, where the bullet exited. The witness maintained that there was no blackening, stating that he did not observe any during his examination of the body.
The court then adjourned the trial for the next day, with the witness expected to finish his testimony and continue cross-examination. During the trial, the defense counsel focused on discrepancies in the witness's report, particularly omissions related to the nature of the wounds found on the deceased. Referring to various texts and journals cited in previous sessions, the defense argued that the wound reported as the exit was, in fact, the entry wound, and vice versa.
They asserted that the lacerations on the right wound matched the descriptions of an entry wound according to the references provided to the court. This led the defense to question the competence of the pathologist, suggesting that he failed to make accurate deductions in his postmortem, which is central to the case.
Ambayo, however, stood by his findings, explaining that in some cases, both wounds can present similar characteristics. The defense further contended that the witness might have been cognitively biased when drafting the report. They argued that the witness may have had a prior conversation with Detective David Beteise and others who had already formed an opinion about the entry wound being on the left, potentially influencing the witness's conclusion without thoroughly examining both wounds.
In response, the witness told the court, "My lord, I wasn't biased, and Beteise did not share his view with me." The defense highlighted inconsistencies in the postmortem report, noting that it was dated 2nd November 2023, yet the witness, Ambayo, admitted that this was not the day it was sent out.
"My lord, I don't remember the exact date, but I can confirm it wasn't 2nd November," Ambayo stated.
When the defense suggested that the report was backdated based on the stamps, the witness clarified that it was the mortuary's policy to use the date when the body was brought in, not the date when the report was finalized. The defense also accused the witness of leaking the postmortem report to UPDF soldiers, who allegedly used it to initiate investigations into Katanga's death. They pointed out that the same report was published by an online news website on November 21, 2023.
"Are you aware that your report was first published on an online publication, Chimp Reports?" Karuhanga asked. He then approached the witness dock to verify whether the published report was the same as his. Ambayo responded, "My lord, it's so faint I cannot see it clearly."
Furthermore, the defense accused the witness of lying in his report, specifically regarding the identification of the body. The report claimed that the body was identified at the mortuary by Martha Nkwanzi, Katanga's daughter, but the defense argued that Martha was not at the mortuary at that time.
Defense lawyer Macdosman Kabega continued the cross-examination, questioning whether Ambayo had a conflict of interest, given that he works for the police, the same force that requested the autopsy.
"Are you in the police, the same force investigating, and it has even indicated to you what they wanted? Do you think that report is credible?" Kabega asked.
He suggested that Ambayo should have distanced himself from the examination to avoid any potential bias, especially since other pathologists at the mortuary were not attached to the police. In response, Ambayo defended his role, stating that he was the qualified medical professional on duty at the time and that it would not have been fair to distance himself from the examination. He also refuted the claim that the police had influenced the autopsy report.
Kabega then questioned the possibility of the gun picking up the accused's DNA from the marital bed where it was found.
"You know what goes on in the double bed, and as a scientist, you know it's possible for the gun to pick up DNA if placed on the bed," Kabega argued.
However, Ambayo clarified that he was not a ballistics expert and could not provide an answer to the DNA question. After a short break, the court resumed with the prosecution lawyer, Muwaganya, reexamining the witness. Muwaganya argued that the journals used by the defense during cross-examination were based on standards set by the National Association of Medical Examiners, which apply to the United States but are not applicable to the Ugandan context. This, he suggested, rendered them irrelevant to the case at hand.
The prosecution then confirmed that the witness is a registered medical professional with the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council and is, therefore, adequately trained according to the requirements for a pathologist in Uganda. With this, the court was adjourned to August 27.
{loadposition inarticle}
Source
