Naome Nyangweso, a key witness in the high-profile Katanga murder trial, testified in court (PHOTO/Courtesy)KAMPALA, UGANDA – Since July 2024, the murder trial of businessman Henry Katanga has continued to dominate court proceedings, with different twists and turns as the prosecution and defence tussle it out.After a brief recess, the trial resumed on October 15, with more revelations and testimonies as the High Court continued to investigate the circumstances surrounding Katanga’s death.The controversy surrounding the case in the form of contradictions and inconsistencies continued, with Naome Nyangweso, a key witness in the high-profile murder trial, facing intense scrutiny. During her two-week cross-examination, defence attorneys uncovered several discrepancies in her statements. Nyangweso’s phone records, presented in court, contradicted her claims of receiving calls from Henry Katanga a day before his death. Defence lawyer Jet Tumwebaze accused her of fabricating these calls, casting doubt on her credibility.Furthermore, allegations emerged that Nyangweso coerced George Amanyire, the shamba boy, into testifying in her favour. This raised concerns about witness tampering and the reliability of Amanyire’s testimony.The court also heard evidence suggesting Nyangweso stood to gain from Henry Katanga’s estate, potentially motivating her testimony. Counsel Tumwebaze implied that her actions were driven by self-interest rather than a desire for justice. DetailsAlthough Nyangweso had claimed that she regularly spoke with her brother, a two-month-long call log provided in court showed only one conversation on October 27, 2023.In response, Nyangweso stated that she frequently communicated with the deceased through WhatsApp, using his MTN line. However, Tumwebaze contested this claim, pointing out that none of her three police statements mentioned the use of WhatsApp for communication with the deceased.“In your three police statements covering 60 days, you never revealed that you had any WhatsApp conversations between the two of you using that number,” Tumwebaze argued.He noted that Nyangweso had only listed an Airtel line as the deceased’s WhatsApp number, but failed to mention any secret communication lines in her police statements.“I put it to you that the reason you didn’t reveal these numbers to the police is because they don’t exist,” Tumwebaze asserted.The cross-examination then shifted to a phone call that Nyangweso had with the deceased on October 27, 2023, the day before the wedding of their niece, Patricia Kankwazi. Tumwebaze suggested that the sole purpose of this call was for the deceased to inform Nyangweso that she would not be fulfilling the traditional role of “ssenga” (paternal aunt) at the wedding.“You know the central role that the ssenga plays at a niece’s wedding in Kinyankore culture?” Tumwebaze asked.“My lord, I will not answer that one,” the witness responded.“You don’t have a choice. When you take an oath, you are the property of the court,” Tumwebaze replied.He further explained that the role of the paternal aunt in Kinyankore culture includes bringing a milk pot to the newlyweds the day after the wedding and formally handing over the bride to her new family. Tumwebazze argued that as the late Henry Katanga’s only surviving sister, this responsibility should have fallen to Nyangweso.The presiding judge sought clarification, asking, “Are you the only surviving sister?” “Yes, my lord, but they chose someone else. I could not force myself there,” Nyangweso replied.Tumwebaze asserted that the deceased, Katanga, had deliberately chosen their cousin, Lydia Kabirisi, over Nyangweso for a key traditional role at their niece’s wedding, because he did not trust her with family matters or secrets, as she had previously claimed.“You didn’t play this important role two years earlier at Martha’s wedding either,” Tumwebaze pointed out, suggesting a pattern of exclusion.“Your brother hadn’t called you for two months, and the reason he called on the 27th was to relieve you of your duties, not to discuss his estate,” Tumwebaze continued.However, Nyangweso maintained that it was Molly Katanga, the widow, who had chosen their cousin for the role, not Henry. Tumwebaze further argued that Nyangweso’s behaviour after her brother’s death, especially towards his widow and children, demonstrated why Katanga had not entrusted her with the role of Ssenga.Additionally, Tumwebaze disputed Nyangweso’s claim that her brother was having serious conflicts with his wife, pointing to phone records that indicated the couple communicated frequently—an average of three times a day—whereas Nyangweso had barely spoken to her brother, according to the same records.The defence also questioned why Nyangweso, despite being a village council chairperson for six years, had not reported her allegations that Molly Katanga was planning to kill her husband.“The reason you never reported these allegations is because Henry Katanga never mentioned anything about his wife wanting to kill him,” Tumwebaze said.He added that even if Katanga had made such claims, Nyangweso did not take them seriously, as evidenced by her lack of action.“If your brother tells you that his life is in danger, is it natural that you do absolutely nothing?” Tumwebaze asked. Nyangweso responded by insisting that she trusted and believed her brother and that they were in the process of hiring a lawyer.The cross-examination then turned to Nyangweso’s claims that Katanga had been tracked before his death. Tumwebaze questioned whether the witness had found any evidence supporting this claim.“I don’t know, my Lord, because I’m not investigating someone who is already dead,” Nyangweso replied.Tumwebaze asserted that there was no evidence to support her claim of tracking. Tumwebaze then challenged Nyangweso’s testimony regarding an alleged meeting with Katanga on October 30, 2023, during which she claimed her brother gave her a small safe containing important documents.One of the police officers who conducted the search at Katanga’s office had previously testified that he did not sign the search certificate because he had to leave for prayers being held in honour of the deceased. Tumwebaze seized upon this testimony, suggesting that while prayers were being conducted, Nyangweso was in her brother’s office searching for documents and money.The witness, clearly upset, responded, “My lord, I need to be respected. I am not a thief.”The cross-examination then touched on a separate burial ceremony held by Nyangweso at her mother’s home in Kashaari country, while her brother was laid to rest in Nyabushozi County.Tumwebaze questioned statements Nyangweso made at that ceremony, where she reportedly claimed that Katanga could not have shot himself because he was right-handed and had been shot from the left side. She also claimed to have seen two bullet wounds on his body—one on the head and one on the thigh—during a viewing at the mortuary. Tumwebaze asserted that these statements were fabricated to support the theory that Katanga had not committed suicide.“You came up with these lies to create false evidence against Molly Katanga,” Tumwebaze said. He then asked the witness, “If it can be shown that the bullet entered through the right side, would you still say suicide is not ruled out?”Finally, Tumwebaze suggested that suicide should not be ruled out, pointing out that another of Nyangweso’s brothers, Ntomi, had also died by suicide.“There is a history of suicide in your family, and Henry’s death didn’t surprise you,” he said, further alleging that Nyangweso had confided in someone that her brother Henry was suicidal, similar to Ntomi. Visibly emotional, Nyangweso responded, “It’s not true, my lord. No one has ever killed themselves in our family.”Defence counsel Tumwebaze introduced a contentious line of cross-examination, suggesting that Nyangweso had attempted to coerce witness George Amanyire into changing his testimony about the events of November 2, 2023, when businessman Henry Katanga died.Tumwebaze alleged that Nyangweso, alongside senior counsel Mwesigwa Rukutana, Assistant Inspector of Police Wilber Tworekire, and lawyer Lesta Kaganzi, visited Amanyire at Kigo prison on February 6, 2024, to pressure him into falsely implicating Molly Katanga in her husband’s death.According to the defence, Amanyire had informed them that Nyangweso offered to help secure his release if he agreed to change his story. However, prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya quickly objected, accusing the defence of attempting to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial information.Tumwebaze persisted, stating that the defence had obtained a court order from Kajjansi Magistrate’s Court, along with a letter from the Commissioner General of Prisons, which documented Nyangweso and the others’ visit to Amanyire.He argued that the records showed the group entered Kigo prison at nearly the same time, suggesting they coordinated their visit.Tumwebaze pressed further, accusing Nyangweso of offering Amanyire freedom if he changed his testimony to implicate Molly Katanga, but the witness continued to deny the accusations.According to the defence, Amanyire’s original account was that he heard Molly screaming on the night of November 2 and went to check on the situation. When he knocked on the master bedroom door, Henry responded and told him to go away, after which the beatings and screams continued.Amanyire allegedly then woke up another household member, Denise Nayebare, to call Katanga’s daughters. Shortly afterwards, the daughters arrived and took their mother, Molly, who was reportedly naked and crawling, to the hospital. Tumwebaze claimed that Amanyire had consistently told this version of events, which included his belief that Henry Katanga had beaten his wife before taking his own life.However, according to the defence’s narrative, Nyangweso had allegedly pressured Amanyire to alter his story, threatening that he would “rot in jail” if he didn’t comply.The defence further alleged that two days after Nyangweso’s visit, a group that included prosecution lawyer Jonathan Muwaganya and Assistant Commissioner of Police Lydia Watono visited Amanyire to take his revised statement.Tumwebaze also introduced photographs of Molly Katanga’s injuries, showing deep wounds and scars. He challenged the witness’s earlier testimony, asserting that only Henry Katanga could have inflicted such wounds and that the evidence indicated Henry himself may have pulled the trigger.Additionally, he accused the witness of mobilising public sentiment against the accused by leading media campaigns and distributing T-shirts bearing accusations against Molly.“You printed T-shirts claiming A1 [Molly Katanga] is a murderer, distributed them to market vendors, and protested at court,” Tumwebaze said.Nyangweso denied the allegations.Court allows crucial evidenceRegarding the letters from the prison authorities referring to visits made to George Amanyire, the judge noted that the witness had admitted to signing the visitors’ book.He concluded that the records of these visits, having been provided by the prison authorities in response to a court order, were public documents under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.“The signed documents can be admitted as they pertain to the visits to Amanyire and have been properly brought before this court as defence exhibits,” the judge stated.After the exhibits were accepted, the defence resumed cross-examining the witness, with Counsel Macdosman Kabega leading. Kabega questioned the witness’s claim that the deceased, Henry Katanga, had discussed with her his intention to write a will. He referred to the police statement made by Katanga’s lawyer, Ronald Mugabe Luranga, on November 26, 2023, which stated that Katanga had already made a will in 2018.Kabega challenged the witness, suggesting that she was not as close to Katanga as she claimed. Kabega also pressed the witness about the alleged “dangerous gang” that Katanga had reportedly mentioned to her, questioning why she had never revealed their names.The witness responded that she could not name them in court, leading Kabega to retort, “We are talking about a group that allegedly wanted to kill your brother. Why do you want to protect them?”Turning to the documents the witness claimed Katanga had given her, Kabega suggested that they might include land titles belonging to Katanga and his wife, Molly. When asked to present the documents to the court, the witness stated, “I will have to consult my lawyer before I produce them.”Kabega further questioned the witness’s claim that Katanga believed his wife wanted to kill him, pointing out that the couple continued to buy joint properties.He suggested that Katanga and his wife were living harmoniously and that the assumption that Molly wanted to kill him was false. Kabega also implied that the witness was keeping the documents because she wanted to claim Katanga’s estate.“You want to grab their land, and that’s why you are scheming to keep A1 in prison as long as possible,” he said, though the witness denied these accusations.Like this:Like Loading…Related
