KAMPALA, Uganda — Ugandan publication Red Pepper has issued an unconditional apology and retracted two articles about a dispute over the estate of the late Christine Namubiru Nkuutu after the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) ruled that the reporting fell short of required standards of accuracy, verification, fairness and privacy.
The apology, published on September 17, followed a complaint by Conrad K. Nkutu, Sophie Nkuutu and Martin Kintu through MMAKS Advocates over reports concerning the family’s inheritance dispute.
In its decision, the regulator found that although the dispute over the estate could be a legitimate subject of public interest, Red Pepper had not adequately demonstrated how the private family information disclosed in its reporting served that interest.
The Commission also faulted the publication for failing to seek comments from the three complainants before publishing serious and contested allegations about them.
Red Pepper acknowledged the findings, admitting that the articles contained unverified information and did not meet the standards of responsible journalism required by law and professional practice.
“We accordingly retract the articles in their entirety and withdraw the allegations and information contained in the publication,” the publication said in its apology.
Red Pepper withdraws two articles
The complaint centred on an article headlined, “Blood, Billions & Betrayal! Ex Minister Nkutu Family Torn Apart in Shock Property War as Siblings Conrad, Sophie & Martin Gang Up Against Last Born, Accused of Hatching Butabika Plot Over Dead Mother’s USD10M Empire.”
A second article, titled “NKUTU FAMILY WAR! Court Finally Speaks, Hands WILL Executors Power Over Multibillion Estate as Youngest Son Questions Rush,” was also covered by the apology and retraction.
The complainants argued that the reports contained defamatory and unverified allegations, exposed private family information without adequate justification and were published without giving them an opportunity to respond.
Red Pepper had defended its reporting, arguing that it concerned a contentious inheritance dispute and relied on court and police records, family documents, correspondence and multiple sources. It also maintained that the matter was of public interest.
However, UCC found that the existence of an inheritance dispute did not give the publication unrestricted grounds to disclose private information about family members.
The regulator said Red Pepper had not sufficiently explained why the specific personal details published were necessary to inform the public about the estate dispute.
UCC faults failure to seek comment
A central issue in the ruling was the publication’s failure to seek responses from the people facing the allegations.
UCC said the omission deprived the complainants of an opportunity to respond to or clarify the claims and contributed to the articles falling short of the standards of accuracy, verification, balance and impartiality.
The Commission clarified that journalists are not automatically required to seek comments from every person mentioned in a report. However, it said seeking responses was particularly important in this case because the allegations were serious, contested and could reasonably have been checked before publication.
The decision underscored the distinction between reporting on a matter that attracts public interest and publishing every detail associated with it.
While the underlying inheritance dispute could legitimately be reported, UCC found that Red Pepper had not demonstrated that the private family information included in its stories served a sufficient public-interest purpose.
The regulator emphasised the importance of verification, 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.”
Regulator orders editorial reforms
UCC directed Red Pepper to remove the disputed material from its website and other online platforms where it had been shared, retract the material and publish an unconditional apology with prominence equivalent to that of the original article.
The publication was also directed not to publish further material about the complainants on the subject, or similar content, without ensuring accuracy, verification, fairness and balance.
The Commission required Red Pepper to submit evidence within five days of the decision demonstrating that it had adequate editorial procedures for verifying stories and ensuring they were reviewed by editors before publication.
It warned that failure to comply could result in further sanctions, including revocation of the publication’s licence, orders directing telecommunications operators to block access to its website and prosecution.
Also Read: The Observer Media, Watchdog Communications fined Sh50m for defaming FAO official
In its September 17 statement, Red Pepper said the articles had been removed from its online platforms and that steps were being taken to ensure the content was also removed from other platforms where it had been shared.
The publication also acknowledged the requirement to strengthen its editorial verification and review procedures.
Further legal action remains possible
The complainants had asked UCC to investigate Red Pepper’s editorial policies and consider sanctions, including suspension or revocation of its licence and restrictions on access to the website. They also sought referrals concerning allegations of extortion and contempt of court orders.
The Commission indicated that matters falling outside the issues determined in its decision could be pursued before courts of competent jurisdiction.
Either party was entitled to appeal the decision within 30 days.
The ruling places editorial verification, the right of reply and respect for privacy at the centre of the dispute. Red Pepper’s subsequent apology and retraction mark a formal acknowledgement of the regulator’s findings, while any separate legal claims remain subject to the relevant proceedings.
The case also highlights a broader challenge for digital newsrooms: a dispute may warrant public scrutiny, but the publication of serious personal allegations still requires evidence, a fair opportunity to respond and a clear justification for disclosing private information.
