Uganda: DNA Debacle - Katanga Trial Exposes Forensic Failures

23 September 2024
Nile Post (Kampala)
By David Omoding

The presiding judge, Isaac Muwata, is expected to rule on the admissibility of the disputed police form on September 26, 2024. This decision could have broader implications for the future of forensic evidence used in Uganda's courts.

The ongoing trial of businessman Henry Katanga's murder has brought to light significant concerns over the reliability of DNA evidence handled by the police forensic laboratory. The testimony of the Police's Forensic Director, Andrew Mubiru Kizimula, has added to the growing debate about the integrity of forensic processes in criminal cases in Uganda.

During his testimony at the High Court, Kizimula admitted that DNA samples processed in the police lab could potentially be contaminated. This admission followed three days of intense cross-examination by the defence team representing the widow of Katanga, who succumbed to a fatal gunshot at his Mbuya-Nakawa home on November 2, 2023.

Kizimula's involvement as the eighth prosecution witness has sparked broader scrutiny. As the individual responsible for examining blood samples and a pistol linked to the case, his findings were documented in a report that has been submitted to the court. However, defense lawyers from KAA Advocates have raised questions about the reliability of such evidence.

The defense challenged Kizimula's authority to conduct DNA analysis, arguing that the police are legally restricted from handling DNA tests in criminal cases, save for matters of parentage. This task, according to the defense, is the domain of the Government Analytical Laboratory, which has served as the cornerstone of forensic analysis for over five decades. The argument brings to light a persistent problem: cases being tried based on forensic evidence produced by institutions that lack the mandate and accreditation to conduct such analyses.

The defense team also accused Kizimula of operating under the influence of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), alleging that the DNA report was tailored to fit the prosecution's narrative. According to the defense, Kizimula's report, which was produced in April 2024, was dated two months after the DPP had publicly declared the intention to rely on DNA evidence. This raises serious concerns about the timing and objectivity of forensic reports in high-profile cases, especially when the processes involved have not been transparent.

This is not the first time Uganda's police forensic laboratory has been called into question. Several other cases in recent years have faced similar allegations, where defense teams have questioned the validity of DNA evidence processed in non-accredited laboratories. The lack of international recognition for results produced by these facilities has compounded the problem, making it harder for defense teams to trust forensic evidence and increasing the likelihood of appeals and retrials.

In this case, the defense further questioned the reliability of police Form 17A, the document used to request the DNA analysis. Discrepancies were noted, including the appearance of a missing sample (H) that was not disclosed to the defense but was included in the evidence submitted to the court. Defense lawyer Macdusman Kabega has called for his version of the police form to be admitted as evidence, a request that has prompted objections from the prosecution.

With similar challenges being raised in other trials, the reliability of evidence from police labs has become a pressing issue for Uganda's justice system. Legal experts warn that a backlog of cases where the credibility of forensic reports is contested could erode public confidence in the system. If evidence continues to be produced by non-accredited institutions using outdated methodologies, it may lead to widespread questioning of verdicts already handed down, particularly in cases relying heavily on DNA analysis.

The presiding judge, Isaac Muwata, is expected to rule on the admissibility of the disputed police form on September 26, 2024. This decision could have broader implications for the future of forensic evidence used in Uganda's courts.

Summary of defense concerns

  • Potential Contamination: The Forensic Director admitted that DNA samples can be contaminated, raising questions about the reliability of the analysis.
  • Legal Authority: The defense challenged the police's authority to conduct DNA tests, arguing that it should be handled by a specialized government laboratory.
  • Influence of the DPP: The defense alleged that the DNA report was influenced by the DPP's public declaration of reliance on DNA evidence.
  • Discrepancies in Police Form 17A: The defense noted discrepancies in the police form used to request the DNA analysis, including a missing sample.
  • Outdated Software: The defense suggested that outdated software was used to analyze the DNA samples, potentially affecting the reliability of the results.
  • Destruction of Evidence: The defense argued that the destruction of a DNA swab from the murder weapon's trigger constituted a loss of crucial evidence.
  • Lack of Direct Evidence: The defense contended that the DNA found on the trigger did not directly implicate the accused, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
  • Eroding Public Trust: The repeated challenges to DNA evidence from police labs can erode public trust in the justice system.
  • Backlog of Cases: A backlog of cases with disputed forensic evidence can strain the judicial system and delay justice.
  • Miscarriages of Justice: If non-accredited labs produce unreliable evidence, it could lead to wrongful convictions and appeals.

Read the original article on Nile Post.

Tagged:
Copyright © 2024 Nile Post. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

AllAfrica publishes around 500 reports a day from more than 100 news organizations and over 500 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.