![NO ONE HAS THE POWER TO FIRE HIM! Ex-Omuhikirwa [Who Fought M7 in 2016] Dares Tooro Clan Leaders Over Rwomiire Sacking, Says Only King Oyo Could Fire Him](https://mulengeranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Steven-Kaliba-Ateenyi-75x75.jpg)
By Mulengera Reporters
The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) hearing into complaints linked to Pastor Robert Kayanja’s Channel 44 TV broadcasts took a turn after Pastor Jackson Senyonga’s legal team presented a series of audio recordings, video clips and text communications which they said were directly connected to evidence previously tabled before the Mengo Chief Magistrates Court.
The hearing stems from a complaint that prompted UCC to investigate broadcasts aired on Channel 44 TV, owned by Kayanja, and other platforms including Ssenyonga’s Top TV and David Kiganda’s Kingdom TV over alleged misrepresentation of proceedings in Criminal Case No. KLA-CO-605 of 2023, a matter involving nine accused persons facing charges connected to claims that Pastor Kayanja sodomized them.
UCC had earlier confirmed receipt of complaints alleging that broadcasts aired on March 19, 20 and 21, 2026 distorted court proceedings and misrepresented testimony allegedly given by police forensic expert Enock Kanene. The Commission subsequently opened formal investigations and convened a hearing at its headquarters in Bugolobi.
At the centre of the proceedings was the response from Pastor Senyonga’s side, who rejected claims that his public commentary on the case amounted to fabrication or misinformation. Instead, he maintained that his sermons and media statements were grounded in material that had already been referenced in court proceedings.
Senyonga requested permission to play what his legal team and him described as evidential material that had been part of the wider forensic review in the ongoing criminal case at Mengo.
The Commission allowed the material to be played during the session, marking a key procedural moment as attention shifted to the substance of what Senyonga had been referring to in his public statements.
Among the material presented were recordings, messages and video clips which Senyonga’s team said formed part of communications and evidence already discussed during testimony by police digital forensic expert Enock Kaneene. The defence argued that the content being played was not new material introduced for the purposes of the hearing, but information already within the court record.
The Senyonga legal team maintained that the purpose of presenting the material was to demonstrate that his public commentary had been based on judicially examined evidence, rather than personal invention or hearsay.
Representing Pastor Kayanja, lawyers from Katende, Ssempebwa & Co Advocates, led by Solomon Ssegawa, objected to parts of the interpretation of the material, insisting that the focus of the UCC inquiry should remain on whether broadcasters and commentators had complied with communications regulations in their coverage of the ongoing case.
However, Senyonga’s lawyers insisted that the complaint could not be properly assessed without first acknowledging the evidential basis on which the contested broadcasts and sermons had relied.
The hearing also reviewed Channel 44 TV broadcasts cited in the complaint, which allegedly aired segments of church sermons and commentary relating to the ongoing court matter, where a news bulletin aired on March 19th, 2026 was played and the news anchor said that the court had found the evidence given by Kaneene baseless and that court had established that the audios played to court, as part of Kaneene’s findings were Artificial Intelligence (AI) created.
Lawyers from Ojambo & Ojambo advocates maintained that the broadcasts misrepresented court proceedings. Before the videos were played, the lawyers representing Kayanja and Channel 44 had disputed claims that such news had been broadcasted during the said period.
The matter remains under review, with UCC expected to rule on whether the contested commentary fell within acceptable regulatory standards for media reporting on active cases or not.
For Senyonga’s side, the hearing marked an opportunity to place the disputed material directly before the regulator, forming the basis of their argument that his public statements were anchored in what had already been presented in court rather than being independently constructed allegations. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
