Lawyers representing Molly Katanga on Wednesday objected to the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ms Samalie Wakooli's position as a prosecutor in the case, instead preferring to call her in as a witness, and accusing her of prosecutorial bias.

The lawyers, led by Peter Kabatasi and Bruce Musinguzi of KAA, argued that Wakooli should be in the witness dock to explain matters pertaining to the alleged forgery of evidence. While Wakooli herself was preparing to usher in two witnesses, Kabatsi threw a spanner in the works, with a shocking objection that the prosecutor ( Wakooli), needs to take to the dock as a “prospective witness”.

“One of the prosecutors in this trial is a prospective witness, My Lord,” Kabatsi objected. Musinguzi, noted that Wakooli is in contravention of Regulation 9 of the Advocates Professional Conduct Regulations, which forbids personal involvement in a client’s case.

Musinguzi and team contend that on January 22, 2024, Wakooli prepared and signed an indictment which was read to the court. However, certain sections of that indictment, which will be relied on in this case, seem to have been made up by Wakooli and only known to her at the time.

Sections of the indictment under contention include most importantly the DNA report which Wakooli based on to make conclusions that Molly Katanga’s DNA was predominant on the revolver that produced the killer bullet. Interestingly however, the DNA report based on by Wakooli in January was prepared on April 30th, which makes it logically impossible for Wakooli to have based conclusions on a report 3 months before it ever existed

“My Lord, on May 3, 2024, we were served with a DNA report. The DNA report on page 36 indicates that it was prepared on the 30th of April 2024. This was a prosecution-led initiative, and at the time, the prosecution signed and prepared the indictment on January 22, 2024. So we shall need Wakooli to come and tell us where she got it yet it had not been prepared,” Musinguzi said.

“My Lord, we contend that there is a great likelihood that there could have been prosecutorial bias, which resulted in a prosecutorial fallacy. We therefore would need Wakooli to come and explain where she got the facts from a non-existent DNA report.”

Inside the chaos between Katanga’s lawyers and the DPP

This is not the only time Molly’s lawyers and the DPP have clashed before the judge. Previously McDusman Kabega accused the office of the DPP of going to pressurise George Amanyire, the Katangas houseboy while he was in Kigo prison. Kabega stated that they asked George to change his story and pin Molly. DPP lawyers denied the claim.