By Mulengera Reporters
The defence in Miracle Centre Cathedral lead Pastor Robert Kayanja’s long-running sodomy case on Wednesday raised new suspicion that a key Makerere University audio expert the defense had listed as one of the witnesses may have been influenced into deliberately staying away from court, before abandoning efforts to bring him to the witness box and closing its case.
The explosive allegation was made before Mwanga II Magistrate’s Court in Mengo, where defence lawyer Bernard told Magistrate Adams Byarugaba that repeated attempts to secure the witness had failed, leaving them with no confidence that he would give truthful evidence even if court compelled him to appear.
The audio expert is at the centre of a bitter dispute over translated and transcribed audio and video recordings which the defence has been trying to have properly explained and authenticated before court.
Counsel Bernard told court that the defence had tried to reach the witness but he repeatedly failed to answer their calls.
The lawyers then sought an alternative witness from Makerere University and secured Fatima Mbabazi, the business liaison officer in the College of Education’s language department, who was present in court on Wednesday.
But when the defence attempted to take Mbabazi through the disputed evidence, they discovered that she had not been at Makerere University when the translation was carried out.
“She is neither the author, nor is she at any stage participate in the translation process,” Bernard told court.
He added that Mbabazi was also not the official custodian of the documents the defence wanted to rely on, effectively ruling her out as the witness capable of authenticating the disputed material.
The situation became even more intriguing when Mbabazi attempted to call the original witness in the presence of the defence lawyers, only for him to again fail to answer.
According to the defence lawyer’s, the witness has since remained unreachable.
It was at that point that they raised the possibility that something more than ordinary unavailability could be keeping the witness away from court.
“At this point we’re even suspicious that that witness could have been influenced and is deliberately staying away from this court,” the defence lawyer told the magistrate.
The defence, however, did not ask court to force the witness to attend.
Instead, the defence lawyer said the repeated failure to appear had destroyed the defence’s confidence in the witness and that compelling him would no longer serve their interests.
“We know that court has powers to compel the witness to show up. But as defence we no longer have faith in this witness that he will be truthful,” he said.
The development represents a major setback for the defence’s efforts to have the disputed recordings fully tested, but the lawyers turned the setback into a decision to end their case rather than continue chasing a witness they no longer trusted.
He went ahead and told court that the defense had even attempted to obtain a fresh translation through Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC), believing that the institution would cooperate and make its officials available to testify, but the effort also failed.
The lawyer said the defence had therefore consulted the accused persons and concluded that the evidence already placed before court was substantial enough for them to close their case.
The decision brings to an end another chapter in a trial that has been marked by fierce disputes over medical evidence, forensic material, recordings, translations and the credibility of witnesses.
The prosecution, led by State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya, did not object to the defence closing its case, but sought to play down the significance of the missing witness.
Muwaganya told court that the State had come prepared for the day’s proceedings but accepted that the defence was entitled to decide how it wanted to conduct its case.
He also questioned why the absence of the particular witness should frustrate the defence, arguing that the reports under discussion were not authored by one person.
According to Muwaganya, the court record identifies different authors by initials including SP, GI and PN.
He argued that if one witness was unavailable, the defence could have called another person.
But the defence fired back, maintaining that the people identified by those initials were not the authors of the particular evidence they were seeking to authenticate.
Counsel Bernard said the relevant document identifies a coordinator connected to the material, and insisted that the defence’s attempts to secure the appropriate witness had been genuine and extensive.
He also rejected suggestions that the defence’s concerns over the witness were merely speculative.
According to him, the suspicion was based on the witness’s conduct, particularly his continued failure to answer calls and appear despite efforts to secure his attendance.
The defence further maintained that even if court compelled the witness to appear, it had already lost trust in him.
The courtroom battle over the recordings is only the latest in a series of evidential fights in which the defence has challenged the prosecution’s case and sought to place alternative evidence before court. Earlier, police medical officer Dr. Phenehas Bwambale rejected claims that his examination of the accused persons was biased and testified about the medical findings he made after examining them.
The defence has also presented digital forensic evidence, seeking to challenge the circumstances surrounding the allegations against the nine accused persons.
The prosecution, meanwhile, has repeatedly resisted attempts by the defence to introduce or rely on additional translated and transcribed material at this late stage of the proceedings. The latest dispute has therefore left the case with a striking contradiction, that while the defence says it has lost faith in a witness it believes may have been influenced, the prosecution insists that the absence of that witness does not affect the case and that alternative witnesses could have been called.
With the defence now closing its case, the battle shifts to submissions, where both sides will attempt to convince Magistrate Byarugaba what weight should be attached to the evidence that has survived the bruising trial.
The defence asked for one month to prepare its written submissions, saying the case involved several lawyers who had devoted substantial time to the proceedings alongside other professional commitments.
Muwaganya pushed for a shorter period, arguing that the trial had already dragged on long enough and should now be brought to an end.
The defence maintained that one month was reasonable and also agreed to oral highlights before judgment.
Magistrate Byarugaba adjourned the case to December 9, 2026.
For the nine accused persons, Wednesday’s proceedings marked a decisive moment, that rather than allowing the prosecution’s objections and the disappearance of a contested witness to prolong the trial, they have chosen to put the evidence already on record before court and challenge the prosecution to prove its case from what remains.
The allegation that the missing witness may have been influenced remains a claim by the defence and has not been established by court. But it has added yet another serious credibility question to a case already dominated by disputes over the reliability, interpretation and authenticity of evidence. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
