Molly Katanga gunshot residue findings have raised major questions in court. A government toxicologist told the High Court that the results don’t prove she fired a gun.
Dr. Jaffer Kisitu from the Government Analytical Laboratory explained the issue in clear terms. He testified that the detected substance didn’t meet forensic standards for confirming gunshot residue.
“If the minimum standard isn’t met, we don’t call it gunshot residue,” he told Justice Comfort Kania.
Dr. Kisitu received three samples taken from Katanga on November 10, 2023. He said samples from her right hand (M2 and M3) didn’t show any GSR. However, the left-hand sample (M1) contained one chemical compound linked to gunshot residue.
That wasn’t enough. He said they need two Category 1 compounds to confirm GSR under official guidelines. Since M1 had only one, the test result remained inconclusive.
Defense lawyer Elison Karuhanga asked whether the findings meant the tests proved nothing. Dr. Kisitu agreed. He also explained that GSR doesn’t prove someone fired a weapon. It may only mean they were near a fired gun or touched a surface exposed to it.
Karuhanga questioned why sample M3 wasn’t marked negative like M2. He pointed out that lab protocols, especially section 10:3:1, supported that decision. He argued the trace could have come from a non-firearm source.
This testimony supported earlier statements from ballistics expert Derrick Nassawali. He said suicide couldn’t be ruled out in the death of Henry Katanga. He also revealed Katanga had broken fingers and fractures in both arms. That, he said, made it highly unlikely that she fired a weapon.
With the Molly Katanga gunshot residue results now officially inconclusive, the court faces more uncertainty. The outcome of this trial may now hinge on other evidence.
