Explosive Cross-Examination: Katanga Under Fire Over Family Empire and Missing Billions

The cross-examination of Molly Katanga took a sharply confrontational turn this week, as proceedings in the high-profile murder trial shifted beyond the circumstances of Henry Katanga’s death and into the complex terrain of family business control, financial authority, and corporate governance.

What began as a criminal trial has increasingly taken on the tone of a forensic audit. By Tuesday, courtroom exchanges were dominated not by eyewitness accounts, but by spreadsheets, bank records, and boardroom decisions. Lawyers on both sides leaned heavily on documentation, probing what happened in the days following the businessman’s death—and, crucially, who assumed control of his business interests.

At the centre of the proceedings sat Molly Katanga, composed but under sustained pressure. Leading the state’s case, Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwa-Ganya methodically introduced financial records, seeking to establish a timeline of decisions within the Katanga business empire.

His aim was clear: to trace how authority within the family’s companies may have shifted in the immediate aftermath of Henry Katanga’s death.

“Can you confirm that these are your bank statements?” he asked, holding up documents before the court. “I can’t confirm because I don’t know if it’s my bank statement or not,” Katanga replied.

The response would come to define much of the exchange. Prosecutors suggested that key decisions were made swiftly—perhaps unusually so—in the days that followed the death, raising questions about intent and control.

Entities including Merge Uganda Limited and Max Logistics emerged as focal points during the proceedings. The court heard that the couple’s children, Arthur Katanga and Martha Nkwanzi, were subsequently brought into management roles—moves the prosecution implied could indicate a rapid consolidation of authority.

To the state, these developments raised red flags. To Katanga, they were necessary.

“The business could not be left to drift,” she told the court, her voice steady.

She framed her actions as a matter of continuity rather than opportunism, emphasizing the need to keep operations running for employees, suppliers, and creditors reliant on the companies. In her account, no ownership structures were altered and no shares were transferred.

“There had been no attempt to alter ownership or seize control of the estate,” she insisted, maintaining that her role remained administrative and practical during a period of uncertainty.

The prosecution, however, pushed back. “Are you aware that dealing with the estate without authorization is an offence called intermeddling?” Muwa-Ganya asked.

Katanga rejected the implication. While acknowledging her involvement in business operations, she argued that it did not amount to unlawful interference.

The questioning then moved deeper into financial matters, with the state alleging that substantial sums—running into billions of shillings—had been withdrawn from company accounts after Henry Katanga’s death. Prosecutors suggested this pointed to a shift in financial control requiring closer scrutiny.

Katanga disputed the claim.

“My late husband never operated those accounts,” she said, explaining that she had long managed financial transactions, including debt obligations. “I have been operating these accounts and am still doing the same,” she added, noting that access had continued even after her arrest through arrangements with banking institutions.

As the cross-examination intensified, Katanga repeatedly said she could not recall specific details when confronted with certain records. At times, she said she could not confirm whether documents presented in court belonged to her.

Prosecutors argued that the lapses in memory were deliberate. Katanga disagreed, insisting that any gaps in recollection were genuine and not an attempt to evade questioning.

Attention then turned to documents allegedly signed while she was in custody at Luzira Prison. The state claimed she had endorsed corporate resolutions affecting company leadership structures during that period.

Katanga acknowledged signing some documents but said she had not fully understood their legal implications at the time.

“I thought that’s how they write those documents,” she said, referring to records that indicated formal meetings may have taken place.

“You knew it was wrong,” Muwa-Ganya pressed.

Katanga rejected that characterization, telling the court she was unaware such actions could carry legal consequences, including intermeddling.

The prosecution also introduced a possible motive, suggesting underlying marital tensions linked to property.

“Our instructions are that you had a deep-seated property wrangle with your late husband,” Muwa-Ganya said. “That you had a motive to eliminate him due to that property dispute.”

“That’s not true,” Katanga responded firmly, denying any such conflict and maintaining that her conduct had been consistent with her established role in the family’s affairs.

Parallel to the cross-examination, a separate legal battle unfolded over the admissibility of evidence. Defence lawyers challenged the introduction of key financial documents, questioning both their origin and the procedures used to obtain them.

Counsel Kabega argued that the material had been improperly acquired after the case had already been committed to the High Court.

“My lord, this is a false affidavit,” he said. “He can’t go to the Magistrate Court when the case is already in High Court, therefore there is no way this evidence can be allowed in this court.”

Another defence lawyer, Elison Karuhanga, raised concerns about the role of Vincent Twenomuguni, who was listed as an investigative officer in the contested documents.

“He wasn’t an investigative officer in this case,” Karuhanga argued. “He lied to the magistrate and these lies are now smuggled into this court.”

The objections strike at the heart of the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation, potentially shaping the direction of the trial in the coming days.

As proceedings continue, the case is evolving into more than a criminal trial. It has become a detailed examination of corporate control, legal boundaries, and the decisions made in moments of crisis—issues likely to remain central as the court weighs both the facts of the death and the actions that followed.