pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
My attention was drawn to your digital newspaper article headlined “Journalist ordered to pay Shs 60m for defaming Letshego CEO” that was published on May 26, 2026.
In the story, the High Court ordered journalist Henry Lubulwa to pay Shs 60 million in damages for defaming Letshego Uganda Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, Germany Giles Aijukwe.
Lubulwa, through his online publication Entebbe Post, was found liable for publishing defamatory claims alleging that Aijukwe and Letshego had fraudulently sold the house of one Alex Niyonzima.
The story was published barely three weeks after World Press Freedom Day 2026, which was observed globally on May 3 under the theme, ‘Shaping a Future at Peace: Promoting Press Freedom for Human Rights, Development, and Security.’
It is a theme worth reflecting on because it reminds us that press freedom is not simply about the right to publish. It is also about the responsibility that comes with that right. The theme highlighted the critical intersection between independent journalism and structural peace, emphasizing that press freedom is essential for accountability, human rights protection, and democratic resilience.
Now, reading the Letshego judgment, the story reminded me of a different reality that has quietly emerged in Uganda over the last few years. Increasingly, the courts are no longer the first place where judgments are made.
In many instances, public opinion gets there first. Over the last four years, Uganda’s financial sector has been at the centre of some of the country’s most consequential legal battles.
There was the Ham Enterprises case against Diamond Trust Bank, the Simbamanyo dispute involving Equity Bank and foreign lenders, the long-running Crane Bank saga, the Afro-Kai case against Uganda Development Bank, digital fraud disputes involving Stanbic and Centenary Bank, and numerous foreclosure battles involving commercial lenders not forgetting VantageMezzanine Fund and its long-running legal and arbitration battles against a local businessman and his group of companies.
Different facts. Different litigants. Different outcomes. Yet almost all of them generated one thing in common: powerful public narratives that often became detached from the legal issues before the courts.
Long before judges delivered their rulings, social media users, commentators, digital platforms, and sometimes even mainstream media had already chosen their heroes and villains.
That is not entirely surprising. Human beings are wired for stories. We naturally gravitate towards narratives of the underdog fighting a powerful institution. We empathize with a borrower facing foreclosure more readily than we do with a bank enforcing a loan agreement.
We understand emotion faster than we understand legal documentation. The challenge is that financial systems do not run on emotion. They run on contracts, regulations, obligations, risk assessments, and trust.
The Ham Enterprises case is perhaps one of the best examples. For many Ugandans, the story became one of a local businessman taking on a multinational bank.
What received less attention at the beginning was the potentially devastating impact an adverse ruling could have had on Uganda’s international credit markets and foreign syndicated lending arrangements worth trillions of shillings.
By the time the Supreme Court eventually clarified the law, public opinion had long been formed. The same pattern played out in the Simbamanyo case. Most coverage focused on auctioned properties, business losses, and the human consequences of debt recovery.
Far less attention was paid to the legal obligations that had triggered enforcement actions in the first place. In public discourse, many people concluded that the story was about banks taking people’s property.
The courts, however, were examining something far more technical. This is where journalists increasingly find themselves at a crossroads. The ancient tale of the Pied Piper tells of a mysterious musician whose enchanting tune persuaded an entire town to follow him without questioning where he was leading them.
Modern journalism faces its own Pied Piper dilemma. Sometimes the piper is a charismatic public figure. Sometimes it is a wealthy litigant with an effective public relations strategy. Sometimes it is a sensational headline.
Increasingly, it is the algorithm itself. The digital economy rewards outrage, certainty, and speed. It rewards conflict over context. It rewards the dramatic headline over the nuanced explanation.
In such an environment, journalists can easily find themselves following the music without fully examining where it leads. The danger is not that journalists investigate allegations.
They absolutely should. Investigative journalism remains one of society’s most important safeguards against abuse of power. Some of the world’s greatest reforms were triggered by courageous journalists willing to ask uncomfortable questions.
The danger arises when allegations become accepted as conclusions before the evidence is fully tested. Gone are the days when every leak could automatically be treated as an act of public service.
Today’s information ecosystem is more complicated. Business rivals leak. Everyone leaks. Sometimes information is released not to serve the public interest but to settle scores, influence negotiations, damage reputations, or shape public sentiment.
That reality places an even greater burden on journalists to verify, contextualize, and challenge the information placed before them. But institutions also have lessons to learn. Many banks, insurers, telecoms, and regulators still operate under the assumption that legal victories automatically translate into reputational victories.
They do not. The last four years have shown that institutions can win in court and still lose significant ground in public trust. The reason is simple. Litigation is no longer just a legal issue. It is also a communications issue.
Every affidavit can become a headline. Every court filing can become a social media debate. Every allegation can become a viral post. By the time a judgment is delivered, the public may already have reached its own conclusions.
This is why mediation and alternative dispute resolution deserve greater attention than they currently receive. Beyond saving time and legal costs, mediation reduces the collateral damage that prolonged disputes inflict on trust, confidence, and public perception.
The writer is a marketing communications and reputation management specialist.
Related
, https://observer.ug/viewpoint/why-journalism-litigation-and-public-trust-are-becoming-inseparable/
