UCC dismisses Kayanja’s complaint against KTV, cites misreporting by Channel 44

Updated by Faith Barbara N Ruhinda at 1332 EAT on Monday 9 November 2026

Kayanja argued that KTV misrepresented testimony given by a Uganda Police forensic expert during a court hearing on Thursday, March 19, 2026. However, KTV maintained that its report was based directly on the expert’s testimony presented in court.

The accuracy of the report was later challenged in court on Monday, March 23, 2026, when State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya questioned its authenticity.

The report was subsequently played in court for verification, during which police forensic expert Enock Kanene confirmed that the information had been accurately reported.

In her report, Nakayibale had stated that phone recordings allegedly sent from Kayanja’s phone and detailing claims of sodomy involving the pastor in 2017 were played in court.

KTV says Kayanja’s allegations prompted close monitoring of court proceedings

In a statement, KTV said Kayanja appeared on Channel 44 in February 2024 and alleged that Bishop Kiganda and other pastors had conspired with the accused individuals 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 protests at his church,” the statement read.

KTV said the allegations prompted Kingdom Media to closely follow the court proceedings through a professional reporting team.

What the Commission found

In Complaint No. 1 of 2026, Kayanja sought a correction, clarification and apology from KTV, demanding that they be given the same prominence as the original report. He also wanted the Commission to stop the broadcaster from publishing similar content.

However, the Commission dismissed his complaint.

In a counter-complaint, KTV challenged broadcasts aired by Channel 44 on March 20 and 26, 2026, disputing statements attributed to a forensic expert regarding the authenticity of audio recordings and messages presented in court.

KTV also contested reports that the trial magistrate had cautioned defence lawyers against wasting court time with unverified evidence.

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

It further found that a sermon delivered by Kayanja went beyond factual reporting, containing interpretations and assertions that were not established by the court record. The complaint was therefore partially upheld.

In Complaint No. 2 of 2026, the Commission similarly faulted Top Television over its broadcast of a sermon by Pastor Jackson Ssenyonga, a critic of Kayanja, in which he interpreted and reported events surrounding the March 19 court hearing.

The Commission also partially upheld that complaint.

Invest or Donate towards HICGI New Agency Global Media Establishment – Watch video here