Kampala, Uganda: In a heated legal battle, the prosecution and defense teams have locked horns for the second consecutive day over the admissibility of critical electronic evidence in the Henry Katanga murder trial.
The courtroom, presided over by Judge Isaac Muwata, was packed as arguments centered on whether the CCTV footage and mobile phone data collected from Katanga’s residence should be permitted as evidence.
The defense team, led by Macdosman Kabega, argued that the electronic devices were seized without a valid court order, violating the Computer Misuse Act.
Kabega contended that the court orders dated November 10 and 22 were improperly issued by Magistrate Opio Charles, who also commissioned the affidavits supporting these orders.
Kabega asserted this dual role was illegal and invalidated the evidence collected.
“My lord, the orders issued by Magistrate Opio Charles were both procedurally and jurisdictionally flawed. The magistrate lacked the authority to issue these orders under the Computer Misuse Act, which requires such actions to be taken by a Chief Magistrate or a Grade One Magistrate,” Kabega argued. He further noted that any evidence obtained through these flawed orders should be expunged from the record.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Samali Wakooli Jonathan Muwaganya countered the defense’s objections.
He asserted that the raw data from the electronic devices was not part of the prosecution’s evidence but had been selectively analyzed and included in the forensic report already disclosed to the defense.
Muwaganya maintained that the search and seizure were lawful, conducted under valid court orders.
“My lord, the prosecution only utilized relevant information from the electronic devices, which was disclosed in the forensic report. The defense’s demand to access all raw data is unwarranted and risks compromising the integrity of the evidence,” Muwaganya stated. He suggested that the defense could access the raw data if the accused explicitly consented, emphasizing that the protection of the accused’s privacy was paramount.
The defense responded by highlighting the potential exculpatory value of the undisclosed data.
Elison Karuhanga argued that the prosecution’s selective disclosure was unfair and could undermine the defense’s ability to prepare a comprehensive case.
He criticized the prosecution’s stance on protecting the privacy of the accused from their own lawyers, calling it a “vast injustice.”
“The prosecution’s refusal to disclose the full data prevents the defense from accessing potentially exculpatory evidence. The notion that the government is protecting the accused from their own lawyers is absurd and unjust,” Karuhanga contended.
Judge Muwata, after hearing the extensive arguments from both sides, announced that a ruling on the admissibility of the electronic evidence would be delivered on November 12 at 10:00 AM.
