In a tense and highly charged press conference held on Tuesday, February 31, Pastor Jackson Ssenyonga of Christian Life Church unleashed a series of strong words aimed at his fellow pastor, Robert Kayanja of Lubaga Miracle Centre Church, demanding that Kayanja address and disprove the accusations of sodomy leveled against him by nine boys. Ssenyonga’s comments came after months of heated media coverage and a protracted legal case that had cast a shadow over both pastors.
The allegations against Kayanja, which are being heard at the Mwanga II Court in Mengo, had already caused significant public division within the Christian community, and now, Ssenyonga was pushing for a public response from Kayanja.
In a speech filled with frustration and indignation, Ssenyonga accused Kayanja of manipulating the media to shift the public narrative, portraying Ssenyonga as a relentless pursuer of the allegations, instead of focusing on the facts and evidence presented in court.
“Rather than standing up in court and proving his innocence, Robert Kayanja is hiding behind media reports, diverting attention from the real issue at hand,” Ssenyonga said. His remarks were clear: Kayanja was, in Ssenyonga’s view, using the media to deflect attention from the real question of whether or not the nine boys’ testimonies were true.
For months, the allegations of sodomy had been swirling around Kayanja, and they had gained considerable attention in both mainstream media and on social platforms. The case seemed to capture the public’s imagination, largely due to the high-profile nature of Kayanja’s ministry. However, while Kayanja’s supporters defended him, calling the allegations baseless and motivated by malicious intent, Ssenyonga and others had begun to raise questions about the inconsistencies in the responses coming from Kayanja’s camp. Ssenyonga claimed that Kayanja had been deliberately avoiding legal avenues and making public comments that distorted the facts of the case.
Recalling the early days of the allegations, Ssenyonga revealed that he had reached out personally to Kayanja to ask him to address the claims. According to Ssenyonga, he even offered Kayanja an opportunity to speak publicly and clear his name during an appearance on Top Radio. He noted that Kayanja had been given free airtime to present his side of the story, a gesture that was intended to allow the Lubaga preacher to publicly address the accusations.
Yet, despite Ssenyonga’s persistent invitations and private communications, Kayanja had not responded in a way that satisfied him. Instead of addressing the matter directly, Ssenyonga argued, Kayanja had allowed others to step in and distort the case, making it about him, rather than the serious accusations facing him in court.
The Christian community, which had once united around both men as influential leaders, was now sharply divided, with some defending Kayanja and others voicing concern over the credibility of his actions. Ssenyonga, however, expressed growing dismay at the manner in which the media had been used to propagate certain narratives.
He claimed that instead of focusing on the substance of the court proceedings and the testimonies of the victims, Kayanja’s supporters and media outlets aligned with his camp were presenting a distorted version of events. Ssenyonga’s accusation was that Kayanja had created an environment in which the public was increasingly distracted from the actual facts of the case, especially the forensic evidence.
Ssenyonga’s comments also included a direct rebuke to recent media reports, particularly those coming from Kayanja’s own Channel 44, which had aired stories claiming that the court proceedings had cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence presented in the case.
These reports, according to Ssenyonga, were nothing more than an attempt to discredit the legal process and the forensic findings, which had already been thoroughly vetted and approved by the Directorate of Forensic Services. The forensic evidence, which included detailed reports on the physical examinations of the alleged victims, had been presented in court on February 19, and Ssenyonga made it clear that there was no reasonable basis for the claims that the evidence was flawed or manipulated.
“The forensic experts involved in this case are professionals with years of experience. These reports were verified and approved by the Directorate of Forensic Services. There is no evidence to suggest that they were compromised or tampered with in any way,” Ssenyonga stated emphatically.
He further described the claims that he had somehow been involved in manipulating the forensic evidence as “completely baseless” and “a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the truth.”
According to Ssenyonga, it was now up to Kayanja to stand up and disprove the allegations against him, rather than continuing to rely on media narratives that cast doubt on the evidence and the credibility of those making the claims.
“It is time for Robert Kayanja to come forward and clear his name by disproving the testimonies of the nine boys who have accused him,” Ssenyonga said. “If he is innocent, as he claims, then he should prove it in the court of law, not through media spin or smear campaigns.”
Ssenyonga’s press conference highlighted not only the personal animosity between the two pastors but also the larger public conflict between their supporters. On one side were Kayanja’s loyal followers, who maintained that the accusations were false and politically motivated, while on the other side were those who believed the victims and felt that Kayanja should be held accountable for his actions.
Ssenyonga’s challenge to Kayanja was a bold move in this larger battle for public opinion, one that he hoped would shift the focus back to the facts and away from the noise of media coverage.
In a broader sense, the conflict between the two pastors has also underscored the influence of the media in shaping public opinion and its role in high-profile legal battles involving prominent figures. Ssenyonga’s accusations suggested that media outlets, especially those aligned with Kayanja, were deliberately distorting the facts of the case in a way that undermined the credibility of the legal process.
The fact that both sides were now using media outlets to frame the public narrative made it increasingly difficult for the average Ugandan to know who to trust or what to believe.
Beyond the personal and professional tensions between Ssenyonga and Kayanja, the case also raised broader issues about the integrity of the church and the role of pastors in Uganda’s society.
As influential leaders in the Christian community, both men wielded significant power and influence, and the scandal threatened to erode the trust that many Ugandans had in their religious leaders. Ssenyonga’s press conference was, in part, an attempt to restore his own reputation and to position himself as a defender of the truth, while Kayanja’s camp continued to make public claims of innocence.
As the case at Mwanga II Court continued, it became clear that this would not be a quick or easy resolution. The legal proceedings would have to play out in full, and both sides would continue to present their arguments in court and through the media.
In the meantime, the public’s perception of both pastors would continue to be shaped by the narratives presented by each side. Ssenyonga’s challenge to Kayanja to disprove the allegations and clear his name in court was an attempt to focus the debate on the evidence rather than the media frenzy that had engulfed the case.
Ssenyonga concluded his press conference with a final call for Kayanja to take responsibility for the allegations and respond appropriately. “If you are innocent, Robert Kayanja, prove it in court. Stop using the media to distract from the truth,” Ssenyonga said. The challenge had been issued, and now, it was up to Kayanja to decide how he would respond.
