UCC Holds That Public Interest in a Family Estate Dispute Does Not Justify Publishing Private Details, and That Failure to Seek Comment Is Significant Where Serious Allegations Can Be Verified
Facts
On 18 May 2026, Conrad Kirunda Nkutu, Sophie Michaela Kitimbo Nkuutu and Martin Kintu filed a complaint through their lawyers with the Uganda Communications Commission against Nalufenya Innovations Limited, trading as Red Pepper Online.
They challenged an article on www.redpepper.co.ug headed "Blood, billions & betrayal! Ex Minister Nkutu family Torn Apart in Shock Property War...". The article covered the estate of their late mother, Christine Namubiru Nkutu.
The Complainants said the article was defamatory and unverified. They said the article exposed private family, marital, business, financial and religious details. They said Red Pepper never asked for their side before publishing.
They said their youngest brother, Emmanuel Balaba Kavuma, used Red Pepper as a conduit. In plain terms, they said he passed his one-sided story to Red Pepper, and Red Pepper published the story for him to hurt them. They said this happened despite a court order against him in Miscellaneous Cause No. KIR-00-FD-MC-0002-2026.
They also objected to a threatened Part 2. Red Pepper had signalled a second article on the same family dispute. The Complainants wanted the Commission to stop this follow-up story unless Red Pepper first checked the facts and heard their side.
Red Pepper replied late, by a letter dated 18 June 2026 and received on 22 June 2026. Red Pepper said the article formed part of its coverage of a public dispute. Reporters used court records, police records, family documents and several sources. Red Pepper denied acting for Mr Kavuma.
Red Pepper relied on the late Ms Nkutu's Will of 20 September 2023. The Will contains an apology to Conrad Nkutu. Red Pepper said the Will showed the family conflict was real. Red Pepper also said the law did not require the paper to seek the Complainants' comment.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Complainants: Mr. Kenneth Kiapi of MMAKS Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Venenscias Kiiza, Editor, Red Pepper Online.
Issues
1. Whether the Commission has jurisdiction.
2. Whether Red Pepper breached the Uganda Communications Act, Cap 103 and its Regulations.
3. What rights and remedies are available to the parties.
Submissions of the Parties
The Complainants' Submissions
Counsel submitted that Red Pepper did not deny publication and merely sought shelter under press freedom. He argued breaches of Regulations 10(b), 10(g), 11(a) and (b), 13(b) and 38(1) and (4) of the Uganda Communications (Content) Regulations 2019. He said the "Butabika Plot" and "Exploiting a Terminally ill Mother" allegations rested on rumour, the description of Mr Kavuma's arrest as "malicious incarceration" blurred fact and opinion, and naming the Complainants' lawyers as conflicted aimed to intimidate them. He accepted the property dispute is reportable. He prayed for a takedown, an apology, a bar on Part 2 of the article, suspension or revocation of the licence, an order to internet service providers to restrict the site, and referral to the Police and the DPP under Regulation 41(1).
The Respondent's Submissions
Red Pepper argued the story was independent journalism on a matter of public interest, a court order against one person creates no reporting embargo, and factual quarrels with framing do not amount to regulatory breach. It said the conflict between Conrad Nkutu and his mother was documented and that Mr Nkutu rejected its offer to respond after publication. It added that no regulation bars Part 2 and that the complaint threatened press freedom.
Commission's Findings
Jurisdiction
The Commission held it has power to receive, investigate and arbitrate complaints under section 5(1)(j) of the Act, read with Regulation 39 of the Content Regulations 2019 and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2019. Red Pepper is a licensed operator and raised no objection.
Public Interest Is Not Public Curiosity
The Commission accepted that an estate dispute is a matter of legitimate public interest. It then drew a firm line. Following PJS v News Group Newspapers, it held the proper question is whether disclosure of the particular private information served the general welfare of the public. Regulation 38(1) demands a compelling and legitimate public interest before private affairs are reported. Red Pepper failed to show a link between the Complainants' marital, financial and family details and the public interest in the dispute.
Verification and the Right of Reply
The maxim audi alteram partem informs the Commission's reasoning. Citing Nyeko v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, it held no absolute rule requires comment from every person named. Failure to seek comment becomes significant where allegations are serious, personal, contested and capable of verification. Reliance on sources did not discharge Red Pepper's duty under Regulations 10 and 11 and paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4 of the Press and Journalists Act, Cap 100.
HOLDING
The Commission held the complaint succeeded in whole and directed Red Pepper as follows:
Pull down the content at once, and cause deletion from associates' platforms.
Issue an unconditional apology of equal prominence, retracting the article.
Make no further publication on the subject without ensuring accuracy, verification, fairness and balance.
Within five days, show proof of editorial verification and moderation measures.
Default exposes Red Pepper to sanctions without further notice, including licence revocation, blocking of access and prosecution.
The Complainants may pursue the extortion claims in a competent court (Regulation 7(j)). Any party aggrieved has 30 days to appeal (section 65(1) of the Act, Regulation 44 and Regulation 32).
Key Takeaways
A public interest defence protects reporting on the dispute itself. Red Pepper could report the estate fight. Private details about the people involved stay protected unless the publisher shows why the public needs them.
A publisher must prove a clear link between each private fact and the public interest. Regulation 38(1) sets a high bar. The interest must be compelling and legitimate. Public curiosity does not meet it.
Having sources does not make a story accurate. Editors must check the facts before publishing. Where possible, they must ask the people named in the story for their response. A one-sided story from an interested party carries the greatest risk.
Licensed online publishers face real penalties for breaching these rules. The Commission can order content removed and an apology published. If the publisher ignores the orders, the Commission can revoke the licence, have access to the site blocked and refer the matter for prosecution.
Follow us on our socials for more updates
WhatsappChannel:https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vazc6SbFHWpvnzkeYm35
X (Formerly X ) : https://x.com/Lawpointuganda
Tik tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawpointuganda0?_r=1&_t=ZS-9AQfRRtwsZs
.jpg)
Comments