Pastor Robert Kayanja

The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has dismissed a complaint by pastor Robert Kayanja against Kingdom Television (KTV), finding instead that Kayanja’s own Channel 44 and Top Television breached broadcasting standards by misrepresenting proceedings in a criminal case.

In a consolidated ruling on three complaints arising from coverage of Criminal Case No. KLA-CO-605 of 2023, the regulator held that KTV’s report of the March 19, 2026 hearing was a fair and reasonable representation of what happened at the Mwanga II Magistrate’s court. It ordered KTV, Top TV and Channel 44 to exercise editorial caution in future broadcasts.

KTV is owned by Bishop Livingstone Kiganda. Kayanja had accused it and its reporter, Annet Nakayibale, of spreading fake news. The coverage concerned a case in which Kayanja accuses eight people; Reagan Ssentongo, Peter Serugo, Labeeb Khalifah, Alex Wakamala, Martins Kagolo, Jamil Mwanda, Israel Wasswa and Aggrey Kanene of trespass at his Rubaga Miracle Centre.

Kayanja claimed KTV misrepresented the Uganda Police forensic expert’s evidence presented in court on Thursday, March 19, 2026. KTV insisted its reporting was drawn directly from the expert’s testimony that day.

On Monday, March 23, 2026, state attorney Jonathan Muwaganya questioned the authenticity of the KTV story. When it was played in court for verification, police forensic expert Enock Kanene confirmed that the facts had been accurately reported.

Nakayibale had reported that phone recordings by Ssentongo, allegedly sent from Kayanja’s phone and narrating alleged sodomy against Kayanja in 2017, were played in court.

KTV’s response

In a statement, KTV said that in February 2024, Kayanja, appearing on Channel 44, alleged that Bishop Kiganda and other pastors conspired with the accused to frame him.

“He presented what he called a phone matrix claiming Bishop Kiganda had called the accused over 1,586 times in a single day to incite protest at his church,” the statement read. “These claims prompted Kingdom Media to follow the court proceedings closely with a professional reporting team.”

What the Commission found

In Complaint No. 1 of 2026, Kayanja sought a correction, a clarification and an apology with the same prominence as the original report, plus an order stopping further publication. The Commission dismissed it.

In a counter-complaint, KTV challenged Channel 44 broadcasts of March 20 and 26, 2026. They disputed statements attributed to a forensic expert on the authenticity of audio recordings and messages presented in court, and reports that the trial magistrate had cautioned defence lawyers against wasting court time with unverified evidence.

After reviewing the broadcasts, the parties’ submissions and the court record, the Commission found that Channel 44 aired statements not supported by what transpired in court.

It also found that a church sermon by Kayanja went beyond reporting and contained interpretations and assertions the court record did not establish. The complaint partially succeeded.

In Complaint No. 2 of 2026, the Commission similarly faulted Top TV for broadcasting a sermon by pastor Jackson Ssenyonga, a critic of Kayanja, in which he interpreted and reported events arising from the March 19 hearing. That complaint also partially succeeded.

Legal basis

The Commission relied on its mandate under the Uganda Communications Act, Cap 103, and the Uganda Communications (Content) Regulations, 2019, which empower it to investigate complaints and take regulatory action against broadcasters that breach broadcasting standards.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. A pastor’s public moral claims, his resort to legal and regulatory pressure against a broadcaster, KTV, the regulator, UCC, finding that KTV’s report was fair, and his own Channel 44 being faulted for misreporting the proceedings.

    Taken together, if the article’s account is accurate, that is a serious apparent double standard and a reasonable basis to question his integrity and use of power.

    These events give me serious reason to doubt this pastor’s integrity and the consistency between his public moral claims and his conduct.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *