Defense lawyers for Molly Katanga, widow of the slain businessman Henry Katanga, have challenged the credibility of DNA evidence presented against her, revealing that the forensic lab responsible for the analysis is not accredited to international standards.
During a rigorous cross-examination of the prosecution’s key witness, Assistant Commissioner of Police Andrew Mubiru, defense attorney Ellison Karuhanga argued that the lab used for the DNA analysis lacks proper certification. Karuhanga highlighted that the lab itself had reported that it was not yet ISO certified, raising concerns about the validity of the evidence.
Under questioning, Mubiru admitted that the lab was not currently certified but claimed it was in the process of obtaining accreditation. “So your results are unreliable,” Karuhanga asserted, to which Mubiru replied, “Those are his words.”
Karuhanga contended that the lack of accreditation casts serious doubt on the reliability of the DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution. He suggested that the lab had been deliberately chosen over other accredited facilities due to its lack of independence.
“I put it to you that the reason your lab was chosen, instead of the lab that is supposed to do your work, is because your lab is not independent,” Karuhanga argued.
Further, Karuhanga accused the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of colluding with the unaccredited lab to manipulate DNA evidence against Mrs. Katanga. He also alleged that the DPP was aware of questionable practices within the lab but chose to proceed with the evidence regardless.
The defense attorney highlighted inconsistencies in the lab’s procedures, such as the lack of ISO certification and the fact that the lab director was not a government chemist. He questioned the reliability of the DNA evidence, suggesting that selective sampling and editing of results were intended to fabricate evidence against Katanga and her family.
“I put it to you that the editing of results and selective swabbing of samples were meant to manufacture evidence against the widow and her children,” Karuhanga said.
The defense team further disclosed that the lab had been operating without proper accreditation since 2023 and alleged that the DPP was aware of this but still chose to collaborate with the lab.
Mubiru denied any wrongdoing, but the defense maintained that the use of an unaccredited lab to produce critical evidence raises fundamental concerns about the fairness of the judicial process.
