By Ben MusanjeThe Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has found Top Television owned by Pr. Jackson Ssenyonga and Channel 44 Television of Pr. Robert Kayanja in breach of minimum broadcasting standards over their coverage of court proceedings involving Pastor Kayanja and eight accused persons in an ongoing criminal case.In a decision delivered on November 5, 2026, the regulator ruled that the two television stations distorted and failed to balance reports about proceedings held on March 19, 2026, at the Chief Magistrates Court of Mengo at Nateete/Rubaga.However, UCC dismissed a complaint filed by Kayanja against Kingdom Television (KTV) and its court reporter, Annet Nakayibale, ruling that the station’s March 19 report was a fair and reasonable representation of what transpired in court.The decision followed the consolidation of three complaints involving Kayanja, Pastor Jackson Ssenyonga, the television stations and eight accused persons in Criminal Case No. KLA-CO-605 of 2023.Kayanja had accused KTV and Top TV of broadcasting false, misleading and distorted accounts of court proceedings relating to allegations against him.In his complaint against KTV, Kayanja challenged a report aired on March 19 during the Amalindilire programme, presented by Nakayibale, arguing that it falsely suggested that a police forensic expert had confirmed allegations against him.But after reviewing the broadcast, the court proceedings and a 107-page forensic laboratory report presented during the hearing, UCC concluded that the KTV journalist had fairly summarised the testimony of the forensic expert, D/AIP Enock Kanene.The Commission noted that the reporter had attended court and was reporting on testimony delivered over more than five hours.It dismissed Kayanja’s complaint, observing that journalists are not expected to reproduce court proceedings word for word but should use their professional skills to provide reasonable summaries of what transpires in court.Top TV faulted over Ssenyonga’s televised preachingIn a separate complaint, Pr Kayanja challenged a March 20 broadcast on Top Television in which Pr Ssenyonga discussed events surrounding the March 19 court proceedings during a televised preaching session.Top TV and Pr Ssenyonga argued that their broadcast relied on information already reported by KTV and maintained that the content was a fair account of what had transpired in court.However, UCC rejected this defence, saying broadcasters cannot escape their responsibility to verify information simply because another media house has already published it.The Commission observed that neither Pr Ssenyonga nor a Top TV reporter had demonstrated that they attended the court proceedings or independently verified the information they broadcast.It further found that Pr Ssenyonga went beyond summarising the court testimony and included his own interpretations and insinuations, which had the potential to lower Pr Kayanja’s reputation among viewers.UCC ruled that Top TV had failed to exercise fairness, objectivity and impartiality by broadcasting the allegations without independently verifying them or obtaining alternative views.The Commission also emphasised that religious programmes broadcast on licensed television stations must comply with the same broadcasting standards as news and other programmes.“Whilst the Commission does not regulate what pastors say or how they choose topics for their preaching sessions, where a broadcaster chooses to air or broadcast a preaching session on its licensed platform, such preaching session must be in accordance with the minimum broadcasting standards,” the decision states.Consequently, UCC found Top TV in breach of Section 32 and Schedule Four of the Uganda Communications Act, as well as Regulation 11 of the Uganda Communications (Content) Regulations, 2019.Channel 44 also found culpable over Kayanja broadcastsThe regulator also upheld parts of a complaint filed by eight accused persons in the criminal case against Kayanja and Channel 44 Television.The complainants, Reagan Ssentongo, Peter Serugo, Khalifah Labeeb, Alex Wakamala, Martins Kagolo, Jamil Mwandha, Israel Wasswa and Aggrey Kanene, challenged broadcasts aired on March 20 and March 26, 2026.They accused Channel 44 of misrepresenting court proceedings by reporting that forensic evidence presented in court, including audio recordings and messages, had been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).They also challenged claims that the trial magistrate had warned their lawyers against wasting court time and presenting unverified evidence.Pr. Kayanja and Channel 44 denied the allegations, initially arguing that the broadcasts cited in the complaint had not been aired on the dates indicated by the complainants.However, during the hearing, the complainants clarified that the disputed news report had been broadcast on March 20, while the televised church service led by Pr. Kayanja had aired on March 26.UCC reviewed the recordings and court proceedings and found that the Channel 44 news report contained claims unsupported by the court record.The Commission particularly noted that there was no evidence in the proceedings that the audio and video material presented in court had been established as AI-generated.It also found no support in the court record for the claim that the magistrate had warned defence lawyers against presenting unverified evidence.Regarding Kayanja’s televised church service of March 26, UCC ruled that his commentary on the ongoing criminal proceedings was not impartial and had the potential to prejudice the case.The Commission observed that, as the complainant in the criminal proceedings, Kayanja had an obligation to exercise caution when publicly interpreting evidence and events in a case that was still before court.It further faulted Channel 44 for failing to balance his commentary with views from independent individuals familiar with the proceedings.UCC consequently found both Kayanja and Channel 44 in breach of the applicable broadcasting standards and regulations.No fines or apologies orderedDespite finding Top TV and Channel 44 in breach of broadcasting standards, UCC declined to impose financial penalties or order the stations to apologise and retract the disputed broadcasts.The Commission said it was mindful that the criminal proceedings were still ongoing and that imposing certain remedies could potentially prejudice the rights of the parties.It also observed that claims for monetary compensation, particularly those relating to defamation and reputational injury, were better handled by courts of competent jurisdiction, where evidence could be given under oath and subjected to cross-examination.Pr Kayanja had sought Shs500 million in general damages in his complaint against Top TV and Pr. Ssenyonga.UCC said the parties remained free to pursue their respective financial claims in court.The Commission further explained that ordering apologies and retractions at this stage could reignite disagreements among the parties and their followers, while rebroadcasting the disputed material could create further risks of violating the sub judice rule.Television stations warned against personal disputesIn its final directives, UCC ordered KTV, Top TV and Channel 44 to exercise editorial caution in future reporting about the ongoing criminal proceedings and other court matters.It specifically warned the proprietors of Top TV and Channel 44 against using their broadcasting platforms to amplify personal disagreements.The two stations were also directed to institute administrative measures to ensure editors exercise proper editorial control over all programmes, including televised church services.UCC reminded religious leaders that although it does not regulate religious beliefs or preaching, religious programmes broadcast on regulated platforms must comply with the law.The Commission urged religious leaders to use their platforms to promote peace, reconciliation, harmony and nation-building rather than settle personal disagreements.The decision was signed by UCC Executive Director Hon. Nyombi Thembo on November 5, 2026, at Bugolobi, Kampala.Any party dissatisfied with the decision has 30 days within which to appeal.The ruling does not determine the guilt or innocence of Kayanja or the eight accused persons in the ongoing criminal case. It addresses the broadcasting conduct of the parties and the television stations in relation to their coverage and commentary on the court proceedings. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).