Judiciary turns to digital forensics as cybercrime and complex fraud cases rise

Judicial officers across the country have been urged to embrace forensic science in evaluating evidence and determining court cases, with experts warning that sole reliance on eyewitness accounts is no longer sufficient to establish guilt or innocence.
The call was made on Monday in Kampala during the opening of a two-day forensic science training workshop organized for over 200 judges and magistrates from Western Uganda. The program aims to equip the bench with essential skills to evaluate scientific evidence effectively.

Speaking at the workshop, the Director of Forensic Services in the Uganda Police Force, Commissioner of Police Andrew Kizimula Mubiru, stated that scientific evidence has become crucial in criminal investigations, particularly where physical eyewitnesses are absent or where digital technology was used to commit the offense.
Mr Mubiru highlighted that judicial officers must understand how forensic evidence is collected, analyzed, and presented in court to make well-informed decisions. He noted that this understanding is especially vital in capital offenses where a conviction can carry the death penalty, the most severe punishment under Ugandan law.

“Many times, we don't have eyewitnesses, so in order to speak to the facts, you need to apply science. That way, you are able to bring out what could have transpired. A judicial officer has to make a judgment as to who is culpable and who is not. In order to come to that decision, they need facts, and eyewitnesses alone cannot be sufficient,” Mr Mubiru explained.

He added that the evolving nature of crime, driven by the widespread use of digital platforms, requires both investigators and judicial officers to appreciate the role of scientific and digital proof.
“The facts will have to include other scientific facts; that is why science is important, especially now that we are moving into the digital realm. So it cannot only be an eyewitness account of what I saw. You will need to involve some digital forensic experts,” he said.

Mr Mubiru noted that forensic science is equally critical in civil matters, such as land disputes involving forged or contested documents, where handwriting and document examiners must provide expert testimony to guide the court.

Forensic science involves applying scientific techniques to examine physical, biological, and digital evidence. Methods such as DNA profiling, fingerprint analysis, blood pattern examination, ballistics, and physical damage assessments allow investigators to reconstruct crime scenes and link suspects to offenses. Additionally, digital forensics enables experts to retrieve deleted messages, emails, and electronic records relevant to investigations, while also protecting innocent suspects from wrongful conviction by offering independent corroboration.

Reinforcing the need for continuous training, the Executive Director of the Judicial Training Institute (JTI), Justice Andrew Khaukha, emphasized that judges and magistrates must keep pace with modern crime trends when evaluating evidence and drafting judgments.
Justice Khaukha pointed out that the widespread adoption of modern technology has fundamentally changed how offenses are executed, citing the rapid growth of mobile devices and cyber networks in the country.

“There are over 50 million Ugandans, 13 million of them owning phones, with 20 million smartphones in the country. In each of our homes, almost everyone has a phone; then add on laptops, some members having more than one phone. That simply confirms that the trends for committing offences are more on using the cyber network. So it's important to understand how this thing works,” Justice Khaukha stated.

He revealed that the Judiciary currently manages an estimated caseload of 200,000 files, a large portion of which involves complex criminal matters, digital systems, and sophisticated financial transactions.
Justice Khaukha particularly referenced corruption cases, noting that offenses involving public resources rarely involve physical theft but rather digital manipulation of electronic banking and management systems.

“When you go into the criminal docket and focus on the docket under anti-corruption, it carries quite substantial amounts of money,” Justice Khaukha said. “I have not come across any case at the Anti-Corruption Court where a public servant, in the particulars of the offence, is said to have carried money from the safe and run with it. Quite often, the particulars are that the money was defrauded on the system. How are you able to understand the system without being able to understand how forensics operate?” he asked.