Katanga Murder Case: Defence Lawyer Challenges Pathologist’s Credentials

The ongoing trial concerning the murder of businessman Henry Katanga took a dramatic turn on Tuesday, August 21, as the defence team aggressively questioned the credibility of key prosecution witness Dr. Richard Ambayo, a government pathologist. The case, being heard at the High Court in Kampala under the supervision of Justice Isaac Muwata, saw the defence lawyers cast doubt on the validity of Dr. Ambayo’s qualifications and the accuracy of his autopsy report. The defence, led by a team of prominent lawyers including Peter Kabatsi, MacDosman Kabega, Jet Tumwebaze, Bruce Musinguzi, and Bison Karuhanga, highlighted that Dr. Ambayo is not registered with the Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners’ Council, an admission the witness made under cross-examination. This revelation called into question the legitimacy of the forensic work conducted in connection with the case. On the prosecution side, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Samali Wakooli, along with chief state attorneys Jonathan Muwaganya and Anna Kiiza, argued the case against Molly Katanga, who is accused of murdering her husband. Molly is on trial along with her daughters, Patricia Kakwanza and Martha Nkwanzi, as well as George Amanyire, a domestic worker, and Charles Otai, a nursing officer. The latter two are accused of destroying evidence and being accessories after the fact.

Cross-Examination Highlights

During the cross-examination, defence lawyer Bison Karuhanga meticulously questioned Dr. Ambayo’s expertise and the reliability of his autopsy findings, beginning with his educational background and professional credentials. Karuhanga: “Dr. Ambayo, did you obtain your master’s degree in medicine from Makerere University?” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “Are you conversant with the Albert Cook Library at Makerere Medical School?” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “Would you agree with me that the Albert Cook Library contains authoritative texts in medicine?” Ambayo: “No. Maybe it is your opinion.” Karuhanga: “What is yours?” Ambayo: “It is not the only library with authoritative texts.” The questioning soon turned to Dr. Ambayo’s familiarity with “Simpson’s Forensic Medicine,” a recognized text in forensic pathology. When handed the book, Dr. Ambayo downplayed its relevance, calling it “an old school book.” Karuhanga: “Doctor, I want to give you a book called Simpson’s Forensic Medicine, 11th edition. Have you heard about it? Do you agree with me that it is an authoritative text?” Ambayo: “It is not an authoritative book.” Karuhanga: “Why? Are certain things missing in the book?” Ambayo: “My lord, it is an old school book.” This exchange sparked laughter in the courtroom, but the defence pressed on, challenging the witness’s knowledge of forensic pathology and his qualifications. Karuhanga: “Can you confirm that you do not have specialized training in forensic pathology?” Ambayo: “My lord, I am an expert.” Karuhanga: “Just answer my question.” Ambayo: “I cannot answer questions that require me to say yes or no because I am an expert.” Justice Muwata: “You explain. It is okay.” Karuhanga: “But first tell us. Do you have any specialized forensic pathology qualification?” Ambayo: “My lord, a master’s in medicine pathology includes a course unit in forensic pathology.” Karuhanga: “So, you did a course unit?” Ambayo: “My lord, I refer him (Karuhanga) to Police Form 48A. The requirement there is for a medical officer, and I am above that category.” Karuhanga: “Whereas you are above that category, you can confirm that you do not have a post-graduate diploma in forensic pathology.” Ambayo: “My lord, it is not necessary.” Karuhanga: “Do you have it?” Ambayo: “I do not have it.” The defence then shifted focus to the specifics of the autopsy report on the late Henry Katanga, questioning the witness’s methodology and findings. Karuhanga: “Doctor, is it fair to say that this is a complete postmortem report? Is that your complete report?” Ambayo: “Yes, this is my complete report.” Karuhanga: “You signed on every page?” Ambayo: “I confirmed, my lord, that I have signed on every page.” Karuhanga: “Doctor, is it fair to say that everything that happens in the mortuary is indicated in the postmortem report?” Ambayo: “My lord, to the best of my knowledge, it is documented.” Karuhanga: “Doctor, if the samples were taken and not recorded in your report, would that mean that the report was incomplete?” Ambayo: “No.” Karuhanga: “You don’t have the duty to record swabs taken during postmortem?” Ambayo: “If it is under my role, I do.” Karuhanga: “I am asking you if swabs are taken during the postmortem?” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “Is it your role to carry out postmortem?” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “Are there any other things that happen as you carry out a postmortem?” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “And those things are not part of your duties?” Ambayo: “That is within my role.” Karuhanga: “As long as swabs are taken during postmortem, it is part of the postmortem?” Ambayo: “It is the crime scene officer who takes the swab because it is not my role.” Karuhanga: “Those are the swabs you have taken?” Ambayo: “Yes.” The exchange between the defence lawyer and Dr. Ambayo became increasingly tense, especially when discussing the specifics of gunshot wounds observed on Katanga’s body. Karuhanga: “Doctor, let us go to page one of your report.” Ambayo: “My lord, I am right there.” Karuhanga: “In your examination in chief, you talked about the existence or absence of marks. Is it right for me to say the surgical marks were old injuries?” Ambayo: “Correct.” Karuhanga: “Doctor, you testified earlier that your conclusion must be supported by the available literature on gunshot and peer-reviewed journals.” Ambayo: “Yes.” Karuhanga: “And you will agree with me that a peer-reviewed article is more than the author’s opinion?” Ambayo: “No.” Karuhanga: “Is the author’s opinion subject to rigorous review?” Ambayo: “It depends. Do we have peer-reviewed journals in Uganda?” Karuhanga: “What happens here is that you are supposed to answer questions.” Ambayo: “That is right.” The cross-examination concluded with Dr. Ambayo acknowledging certain gaps in his documentation but maintaining that his findings were accurate. However, the defence’s relentless questioning left doubts about the integrity of the autopsy report.