|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Through his own lawyers M/s Kanganzi & Co Advocates, unlicensed Kampala online media operator Dean Lubowa Saava has admitted that he is facing piles of many court cases relating to civil defamation. According Kanganzi, among many others Saava has civil suit no. 0194 of 2024 that was filed against him by PostBank using Orima & Co Advocates.
He also has a case that was filed by Joel Senyonyi, the prisons undersecretary, another by Kampala University owner Prof Badru Kateregga Ddungu and another filed as civil suit no. 574 of 2024, which was filed by a Kampala business who Saava declared a thief and murderer.
He also has a case a group of MPs filed against him at the High Court after he branded them scandalous without adducing any evidence. These are led by Hon Emily Kugonza. Police officers and IGG officials also recently filed defamation cases against Saava. And Beti Kamya’s son Arnold is also working on his civil defamation case against Saava.
Saava’s lawyer has been writing to Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) begging the ED Nyombi Thembo to stop investigating Saava on grounds that his TV10 Gano Mazima is already having more than enough problems in the Ugandan civil courts where countless defamation cases have already been filed.
Currently, Saava is the most sued media operator in Kampala to the extent that every week, an average of five new defamation cases get filed against him at the Civil Division of the High Court. His channel is character-assassinating those who refuse to give him money, on a daily basis and many of them have resorted to suing him in civil defamation.
“You still have a chance to choose between fire and water but whatever you choose is what you will get,” Saava threateningly wrote to one of the public officials he was about to begin character-assassinating on his TV10. The official, who has since submitted this as part of his evidence in the civil suit, just ignored and Saava started on him days later. This message was understood by the targeted official and his lawyers to have been a veiled attempt to solicit money from him.
Such civil cases take long to be concluded but in the end, it’s how many powerful journalists and media outlets have been crippled and brought on their knees. Examples include Red Pepper, Teddy Seezi Cheeye and many others.
Kanganzi made this plea to the UCC investigations panel to justify why his client was already over stretched and unable to appear before it to defend himself concerning the fake news, cyber harassment and hate speech acts he previously committed against several entities. Some of these are individual persons and others are institutions. Examples include PostBank, businessman Alexander Lutaaya, Prof Badru Kateregga and many others.
Because they all made almost similar complaints against Saava, whose TV10 UCC says has been breaching minimum broadcasting standards, the Commission decided to consolidate and hear all these complaints in one go. The complainants were each represented by a legal team which filed documents accusing Saava of malicious reporting, hate speech and operating illegal media operations without the mandatory broadcasting licensing by UCC.
The Commission gave Saava the opportunity to appear and defend himself but he didn’t. He feared and stayed away while claiming what he uttered about of them was based on what he read in the New Vision newspaper. In its comprehensive decision appearing on 27 pages, UCC informs Saava that a story merely being from another media outlet doesn’t lessen his personal liability once sued.
Several earlier decisions of Court are referred to, to make Saava aware that he has to carry his cross by demonstrating that what he reported was true. If he had evidence implicating any of his cyber bullying victims, as he always claims, Saava ought to have come to UCC and put his facts on the table. His decision to shy away, as opposed to facing his accusers and prove his case against them, is indicative of the fact that Saava is never sure of his facts.
He even tried to shield himself by claiming that he was already defending himself against the same aggrieved persons in the high court of Uganda. He could have been right on that one because there is always potential to jeopardize one’s own case elsewhere.
Indeed, in the same Saava ruling, UCC implores aggrieved citizens to avoid seeking remedy from both administrative bodies, like the Commission itself, and the Courts of Judicature.
The Commission is advising that parties should choose one forum as opposed to complaining everywhere over similar aggrievement. The public policy behind all this is that government entities end up duplicating work amidst time, money and personnel scarcities.
An absurdity can also result in case the two arbitration bodies (for example UCC and Court) deliver contradicting decisions. It’s advisable that parties aggrieved by reckless journalism practice and offensive broadcasting choose either Court or UCC and not both. In case one isn’t satisfied with UCC’s decision, they can appeal to high court.
The complainants against Saava (who depicted PostBank as corruption-riddled) had also prayed for monetary damages which the Commission declined to grant, preferring to stick to regulatory breaches and the resultant sanctions. The Commission restricted itself to finding that the type of broadcasting Saava has been engaged in is illegal because he doesn’t have any authorizing license from UCC, the regulator, and also because his methods of work breach all minimum broadcasting standards.
He is directed to apply and get his media operations properly regulated and licensed by UCC besides deleting all the offensive content he previously broadcast against PostBank, businessman Lutaaya and Prof Badru Kateregga. He is also ordered to prominently apologize to each of the complainants whose reputation he damaged.
He is required to write a report confirming to the Commission on all these demands and how he has complied with each of them. The apology and retraction of the impugned content must be effected in a manner that satisfies each of the complainants.
He has been given between 3 and 5 days to do all these in a very conspicuous way. This is counting from 22nd August when the anti-Saava decision was proclaimed and signed by UCC Executive Director Nyombi Thembo.
In case he doesn’t do as instructed, UCC has threatened to leverage other regulatory measures available in its toolkit including directing telecom companies to permanently block public access to all Saava’s online media platforms including his YouTube channel called TV10 Gano Mazima.
The other option is to escalate things by involving Police and other security forces to have Saava locked up and criminally prosecuted. There are clear legal provisions mandating UCC to leverage of these regulatory measures. All that notwithstanding, the Commission has always prioritized less drastic measures.
In the same decision, the Commission takes note of and rebukes Saava for the hostility with which he responded by abusing and character-assassinating UCC top officials the moment he was written to and notified about the complaints the victims of his impugned online broadcasts had filed with the Commission at Bugolobi.
Using the same online platforms, which lack the regulator’s authorization and operating license, Saava went as far as falsely claiming that he was being investigated because the complainants had bribed key decision-makers at UCC. The Commission takes strong exception of all this and notifies all and sundry that provocateurs like Saava won’t be able to get away with it the day they ever repeat that sort of conduct.
