Forensic Expert Exonerates Pastor Kayanja: Admits No Pornographic Content Was Sent From His Phone

Enock Kanene, the police forensic expert hired to retrieve alleged key evidence from one of the key suspects in the Kayanja case, has reaffirmed that Pastor Robert Kayanja did not send any pornographic material to any of the suspects.

Kanene, who state attorney Jonathan Muwaganya was cross-examining, admitted that he did not find any pornographic content contrary to what some media houses owned by Pastor Jackson Ssenyonga and Bishop David Kiganda aired, claiming that Kanene had stated so during his testimony.

The phone that Kanene examined belonged to Reagan Ssentongo, who, together with eight others, was charged with defamation, criminal trespass and giving false information to police.

Kanene, a forensic analyst, faced gruelling cross-examination over ethical breaches, procedural errors, and the technical limitations of digital evidence.

The hearing, characterised by “hot exchanges” between the state and defence, saw Kanene admit to several lapses in professional conduct while presenting findings from digital devices linked to the accused.

Procedural Breaches and Unofficial Contact. The morning session focused heavily on the analyst’s interaction with a man identified as Wasswa. The prosecution questioned how the witness could share laboratory information with an individual without verifying their identity.

Israel Waiswa, one of the accused, is a bodyguard of Pastor Ssenyonga, the latter being the main architect behind the plot to frame Pastor Kayanja.

Mistaken Identity: The witness admitted he initially believed Wasswa was a court official because he “kept asking for updates” on the progress of the forensic work.

Lack of Due Diligence: Under pressure, Kanene conceded he did not call any official numbers to verify Wasswa’s status.

Unauthorised Communication: While he claimed he had written authorisation to “proceed to court,” he admitted that speaking to an outsider without specific departmental approval was ethically wrong.

“Analysts are prohibited from conducting any business outside the boardroom… I thought he was part of them [the requesting team],” a visibly shaken Kanene stated, adding that Waiswa had “volunteered to help.”

The “Read vs. Opened” Technicality. A significant portion of the afternoon was dedicated to the interpretation of message data. The state challenged the analyst’s report, which claimed certain messages had been “read.”

The defence and even the presiding Magistrate raised concerns about the system’s logic. The Magistrate noted that users often open WhatsApp groups or message threads simply to “clear the unread backlog” without actually reading the content.

Kanene eventually admitted the limitation of his findings:

The system captures a message as “read” the moment it is opened or viewed. The analyst cannot confirm if the recipient understood or even physically read the text.

“If 50 messages are received and only the last one is opened, the system may capture all 50 as read,” asked State Attorney Jonathan.

Pornographic Content and “Chicken Blood” Videos

The cross-examination moved to the contents of the phone belonging to the accused Reagan Ssentongo (referred to as A2).

Source of Content: The analyst confirmed finding pornographic videos on the phone but clarified that none originated from Pastor Kayanja’s device. Instead, they were recorded by the phone itself or shared via Telegram and WhatsApp.

The Frame-Up Evidence: The court heard testimony regarding a video found on a handset belonging to a suspect named Reagan. The video reportedly showed an adult male with “suspected blood.” This aligned with earlier witness statements alleging a plot to use chicken blood to frame Pastor Kayanja.

Missing Data and “Mzee” The prosecution highlighted a glaring gap in the forensic report regarding an audio recording of a conversation with a contact saved as “Mzee.”

He admitted he did not follow the right procedure (contacting telecoms companies) to establish line ownership.

He also confessed to having selectively verified some numbers while “deliberately ignoring” others. The raw data identifying “Mzee” was not included in the CD or written report presented to the court.

The state concluded by pointing out that without the raw data or a verified phone number, the court could not definitively link the “Mzee” in the recording to any specific individual.

Following a marathon session that left the witness visibly exhausted, the defence requested more time to prepare for re-examination.

The Magistrate adjourned the matter to May 14th, where the defence is expected to attempt to repair the credibility of the forensic findings.