A critical question has arisen in media and legal circles following the Uganda Communications Commission’s (UCC) January 27 directive banning split-screen and squeeze-back advertising during news and current affairs programs: Why has NBS Television—and by extension, the broadcasting industry—chosen to appeal to the Minister of ICT and National Guidance instead of pursuing judicial review in the High Court?
On the surface, the High Court appears the logical avenue. It possesses unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139 of the Constitution and is empowered to review administrative actions for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
A judicial review application could challenge UCC’s decision as unreasonable, disproportionate, or ultra vires.
Yet NBS Television, supported by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), has formally appealed to the Minister under Section 7 of the Uganda Communications Act.
This choice is not an oversight—it is a politically and strategically astute response to a deeply entrenched systemic failure.
The Ghost Tribunal: A 20-Year-Old Legislative Promise Still Unfulfilled
The heart of the matter lies in Part X of the Uganda Communications Act, which provides for the establishment of a Uganda Communications Tribunal.
This specialized body was meant to hear appeals against UCC decisions—including those on content standards, licensing, and consumer complaints—within 30 days, as stipulated under Section 65(4) of the Act and Regulation 44 of the Content Regulations and Regulation 32 of Consumer Protection Regulations.
Two decades since the Act came into force, the Tribunal has never been established. Broadcasters have pleaded, written, and lobbied upto the President/Fountain of Honour.
Promises have been made—"within six months," "in the next financial year"—yet the Tribunal remains a legislative phantom. This absence creates a profound access to justice vacuum.
When UCC makes a decision, aggrieved parties are left in limbo: the prescribed appeal body does not exist, yet the 30-day appeal window continues to tick.
This leads to an uncomfortable reality: UCC often acts as complainant, investigator, judge, and executioner in its own case. In the present matter, UCC—which engaged with broadcasters from 2020 to 2022 on reviewing the advertising standards and tacitly permitted squeeze-backs through non-enforcement—has now used a third-party complaint to issue a sweeping industry-wide ban. Where, then, is the impartial arbiter?
The “Chilling Effect”: Why Broadcasters Avoid Suing Their Regulator
Taking your regulator to court is, in most jurisdictions, a last resort—and for good reason. The relationship between regulator and regulated entity is inherently imbalanced and continuous.
A broadcaster depends on the UCC for licensing, annual compliance certification, type approval certificate, spectrum allocation, compliance certifications, and day-to-day operational approvals and mercy in the face of human errors synonymous with the media world of on air talent vis avis eye balls and entertainment.
Suing UCC in the High Court, while legally permissible, risks souring this relationship irreparably. This is what lawyers term the “regulatory chilling effect.”
In practice, a broadcaster who takes their regulator to court risks a sour relationship, and may face delayed license renewals, heightened compliance scrutiny, and a general atmosphere of regulatory reticence.
This is not mere speculation—it is an observable dynamic in regulator-regulated relationships worldwide. As one seasoned media executive put it: “You can win in court and lose in the boardroom. The regulator holds the keys to your survival.”
Moreover, court processes are slow, costly, and adversarial. They drain resources and stall business planning. For an industry already grappling with digital disruption and economic headwinds, litigation is a luxury few can afford.
A Political Question Requiring a Political Solution
At its core, this is a political and policy question, not merely a legal one. The 2019 Advertising Standards were drafted before squeeze-back technology became an economic lifeline for broadcasters.
The “mischief” the split-screen prohibition sought to address—biased news reporting and viewer distraction—was conceived in an era of linear television, not today’s multi-screen, attention-scarce media environment.
Critically, the original mischief was largely aimed at public broadcasters funded by taxpayers, not commercial broadcasters who rely on advertising revenue to survive. Public broadcasters, insulated from market pressures, can afford rigid advertising rules.
Commercial broadcasters, facing existential threats from digital platforms and changing viewer habits, require creative monetization tools like squeeze-backs to fund quality journalism and current affairs programming. Applying a 2019 standard to a 2026 reality is not just anachronistic—it is economically reckless.
Practically the public has never raised concerns on squeeze backs or split screens save for academic and theoretical activists who may not appreciate the practical reality of an evolving business world.
Section 7: The Minister’s Overlooked Powers
This is where Section 7 of the Uganda Communications Act becomes pivotal. It states: “The Minister may, in writing, give policy guidelines to the Commission regarding the performance of its functions, and the Commission shall comply.”
The Minister is not a substitute for the Tribunal, but in its absence, the Minister’s policy oversight role becomes the most pragmatic avenue for resolving disputes that hinge on policy interpretation, industry sustainability, and regulatory fairness.
By appealing to the Minister, NBS Television is not bypassing the law—it is invoking a provision designed precisely for such impasses.
This approach is strategic: it respects the regulator’s authority while seeking intervention from the political overseer who can balance competing interests—consumer protection, industry viability, and technological evolution.
An Intellectual Mandate: Regulatory Wisdom in a Dynamic Sector
As John Milton wrote in Areopagitica, “Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”
The debate around advertising standards is, at its best, a search for regulatory wisdom in a rapidly changing sector.
UCC’s mandate is not merely to enforce rules, but to steward a vibrant, diverse, and sustainable communications ecosystem. This requires adaptive regulation—standards that evolve with technology and market realities.
The five-year non-enforcement of the squeeze-back prohibition, coupled with ongoing industry engagements, signaled an implicit recognition of this need. The sudden reversal via a complaint-driven directive undermines regulatory consistency and predictability.
Conclusion: A Necessary Step Toward Regulatory Maturity
NBS Television’s appeal to the Minister is more than a tactical move—it is a call for regulatory maturity and collaborative governance.
It acknowledges that in the absence of a functional Tribunal, the Minister’s policy guidance is the most viable mechanism to resolve a dispute that sits at the intersection of law, economics, and technology.
The broader lesson for Uganda’s communications sector is clear: the establishment of the long-promised Communications Tribunal is overdue. Until then, stakeholders must navigate a system where regulatory appeals are channeled through political and policy corridors rather than specialized judicial bodies.
In the meantime, the Minister’s response will set a critical precedent: will regulation be a tool for partnership and growth, or a weapon for punitive enforcement? The future of Uganda’s media landscape may well depend on the answer.
Mr Obadia Ismail is an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda, a Governance & Regulatory Compliance Expert, a media lawyer and regulatory affairs analyst with over 15 years of experience in East African communications policy.
