The defendant, Molly Katanga being wheeled into the court room during a previous court session
HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I The Criminal Division of the High Court is today expected to deliver a crucial ruling in the murder trial of Molly Katanga, determining whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case requiring her and her four co-accused to be placed on their defence.
Presiding judge Lady Justice Rosette Comfort Kania will decide whether the evidence presented by the state is sufficient, if left unchallenged, to sustain a conviction for the murder of city businessman Henry Katanga, who died from a gunshot wound to the head on November 2, 2023.
This ruling marks a pivotal stage in a trial that has gripped public attention, not only because of the stature of the deceased and the accused, but also due to the complex forensic and circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.
Case Built on Legal Foundations
The prosecution closed its case on December 3, 2025, after calling 25 witnesses, including pathologists, forensic experts, scene-of-crime officers, investigators, and relatives of the deceased. Led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Samalie Wakooli and Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya, the state presented evidence aimed at establishing the four critical ingredients of murder: the fact of death, unlawful causation, malice aforethought, and participation of the accused.
In response to defence submissions of “no case to answer,” the prosecution relied on long-established legal principles, quoting the landmark decision in Wilbiro v Republic (1960) to argue that a prima facie case does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, the court is only required to assess whether the evidence on record, if believed, could justify a conviction.
Proof of Death
The first ingredient — that a human being died — is uncontested. The prosecution relied on the postmortem report and testimony of PW7, Dr Richard Ambayo, a forensic pathologist, who concluded that Henry Katanga died from a single gunshot wound to the head.
In addition, multiple eyewitness accounts from prosecution witnesses corroborated the fact of death. The defence has not disputed this element, instead focusing its challenge on whether the fatal shot resulted from suicide or homicide.
Presumption of Homicide
On whether the death resulted from an unlawful act, the prosecution invoked the long-standing legal presumption that all homicides are unlawful unless proven accidental or authorised by law. Citing Republic v Gusambizi s/o Wesonga (1948), the state argued that the burden is not on the prosecution to disprove every alternative theory, but rather on the defence to establish lawful justification or accident.
While the defence has leaned heavily on the pathologist’s concession that suicide could not be conclusively ruled out, prosecutors dismissed this as insufficient to negate the presumption of unlawfulness. They pointed to testimony from police officers who examined the gunshot wounds and ruled out suicide based on entry and exit trajectories.
Molly Katanga and her late husband, Henry Katanga (L)
The prosecution further argued that the suicide narrative was advanced by the accused but lacked evidentiary support. In their view, nothing on record suggests that the fatal shooting was accidental or legally justified, thereby sustaining the presumption of an unlawful killing.
Malice Aforethought
To establish malice aforethought, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, as direct proof of intent is rarely available. Drawing on Uganda v Turomwe (1978), they urged the court to consider the weapon used, the nature of injuries inflicted, the vulnerable part of the body targeted, and the conduct of the accused.
The state underscored that a gun — a lethal weapon — was used, and that the shot was directed at the head, a highly vulnerable body part. They cited Uganda v Kalangwa Bosco (2013), where the court held that targeting the head imputes malicious intent.
On this basis, the prosecution argued that a deliberate gunshot to the head can only reasonably imply an intention to kill or knowledge that death would probably result, thereby satisfying the element of malice aforethought.
Circumstantial Evidence and the Doctrine of Last Seen
Perhaps the most critical and contested element is whether Molly Katanga actively participated in causing her husband’s death. Here, the prosecution leaned heavily on circumstantial evidence, emphasising that the incident occurred behind closed doors, with only the deceased and the accused present in the bedroom.
Invoking the doctrine of “last seen,” the state argued that Molly Katanga was the person last seen with the deceased. Citing Jagenda John v Uganda (2011), prosecutors said this creates a rebuttable presumption that the person last seen with the deceased bears responsibility for the death unless a credible explanation is offered.
This presumption, they argued, places Molly Katanga squarely at the scene of the crime and calls for an explanation that can only be provided through her defence.
DNA Links to the Weapon
To reinforce this circumstantial framework, the prosecution relied on forensic DNA analysis conducted by the Director of Forensics at Uganda Police, PW8 Andrew Kizimula Mubiru. He testified that swabs taken from the pistol magazine, trigger, trigger housing, and barrel revealed mixed DNA profiles, with Molly Katanga as the major contributor on critical components.
According to the prosecution, this evidence links her to key stages of the gun’s operation — loading, cocking, and firing — thereby strengthening the inference of direct involvement.
While the defence challenged the reliability of this evidence, pointing to missing samples, lack of duplicates, and earlier judicial criticism of the forensic expert, the prosecution maintained that the DNA findings remain strong circumstantial indicators of participation.
A Threshold, Not a Verdict
Crucially, the prosecution reminded the court that today’s ruling is not about determining guilt or innocence. The question is whether the evidence presented, if left unchallenged, could sustain a conviction.
By establishing the fact of death, the presumption of unlawful killing, circumstantial proof of malice aforethought, and compelling indicators of participation, the state insists it has met this threshold.
What Lies Ahead
If Lady Justice Kania finds that no prima facie case has been established, Molly Katanga and her co-accused — daughters Martha Katanga and Patricia Kakwanzi, shamba-boy George Amanyire, and medical practitioner Charles Otai — will be acquitted without being required to present a defence.
However, if the court finds that a case to answer exists, the accused will be placed on their defence, opening the next chapter in a trial that continues to captivate national attention.
Given the breadth of evidence, the legal principles invoked, and the circumstantial links drawn by prosecutors, the state’s case appears robust. Whether it ultimately withstands the scrutiny of a full defence will shape the final outcome, but for now, the prosecution has laid a formidable foundation for the court’s consideration.
About the Author
