The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has ordered Red Pepper Online Publications to retract a story about a dispute over the estate of the late Christine Namubiru Nkutu, apologise unconditionally to three family members and strengthen its editorial verification procedures.
The complaint was lodged by Conrad Kirunda Nkutu, Sophie Nkuutu and Martin Kintu through MMAKS Advocates over an article headlined, “Blood, Billions & Betrayal! Ex Minister Nkutu Family Torn Apart in Shock Property War as Siblings Conrad, Sophie and Martin Gang Up Against Last Born, Accused of Hatching Butabika Plot Over Dead Mother’s USD10M Empire.”
The complainants argued that the article contained defamatory and unverified allegations, exposed private family information without sufficient justification and was published without giving them an opportunity to respond.
In a decision dated September 1, 2026, and signed by UCC executive director Nyombi Thembo, the regulator claims that it found that the publication had breached provisions of the Uganda Communications Act and the Uganda Communications (Content) Regulations, 2019, by disclosing private family information without adequately demonstrating its public interest value and failing to seek comments from those implicated.
UCC said the existence of an inheritance dispute did not give the publication unrestricted grounds to disclose private family information. Although the dispute could legitimately attract public interest, the Commission found that Red Pepper had not sufficiently demonstrated how the specific personal information published about the complainants served that interest.
The decision also underscored the importance of accuracy and verification in journalism, stating: “The true value of journalism is derived from media players professionally feeding the public with accurate information and not in being the first to break unverified information.”
Red Pepper denied wrongdoing, saying it had reported on a contentious inheritance dispute and relied on court and police records, family documents, correspondence and multiple sources. The publication also maintained that the dispute was a matter of public interest.
However, UCC found that the publication had not established why the private information disclosed was necessary to inform the public about the estate dispute. It also faulted the publication for failing to seek comments from the complainants before publishing serious and contested allegations about them.
According to the Commission, the omission denied the affected family members an opportunity to respond and contributed to the article falling short of the required standards of accuracy, verification, balance and impartiality.
UCC clarified that journalists are not necessarily required to seek comments from every person mentioned in a story. However, it said the circumstances of this case made seeking a response particularly important because the article contained serious allegations that could reasonably have been checked before publication.
The regulator directed Red Pepper to immediately remove the article from its website and other online platforms where it had been shared. It also ordered the publication to retract the disputed material and issue an unconditional apology with prominence equivalent to that of the original article.
Red Pepper was further directed not to publish additional material about the complainants on the subject, or similar content, without ensuring accuracy, verification, fairness and balance.
The Commission also ordered the publication to submit, within five days of the decision, evidence that it had adequate editorial measures to verify stories and ensure they were reviewed by editors before publication.
UCC warned that failure to comply could attract further sanctions, including revocation of the publication’s licence, orders directing telecommunications operators to block access to its website and prosecution.
The complainants had also asked the Commission to investigate Red Pepper’s editorial policies, suspend or revoke its licence, restrict access to its website and refer allegations of extortion and contempt of court orders to the relevant authorities.
However, UCC indicated that allegations falling outside the matters determined in its decision could be pursued before courts of competent jurisdiction. Either party was entitled to appeal the decision within 30 days.
Red Pepper has since issued the apology.