Faith Is Not a Punching Bag: Stop the Personal Attacks on Pastor Kayanja and His Family – Bowers Mugabi Kaweesa

Faith Is Not a Punching Bag: Stop the Personal Attacks on Pastor Kayanja and His Family – Bowers Mugabi Kaweesa

I grew up in a religious family, but we had neighbours who had their own traditional beliefs.

They had shrines and oftentimes, you would hear someone howling in the dead of the night (henpecked by the ancestors?).

As children, we used to mock our classmates who came from such families. My father, who is a son of a church minister, told us: He who humiliates another’s family digs a trench that his own children will fall into.

Uganda must defend freedom of expression while rejecting humiliation, intimidation and the dragging of innocent family members into public disputes.

Uganda’s public debate is facing a troubling test: can people challenge religious leaders without ridiculing their families, and can religious leaders defend their faith without escalating disagreements into personal confrontation?

The growing public dispute involving Pastor Robert Kayanja and businessman and commentator Frank Gashumba illustrates why these questions matter.

What began as a debate about alleged fake miracles, religious accountability and the claims of some preachers has developed into an increasingly personal confrontation involving relatives on both sides.

The right to question a pastor does not confer the right to humiliate his family.Gashumba has every right to question claims of miraculous healing, demand accountability from religious institutions and challenge practices he believes exploit vulnerable believers.

No church, pastor or religious organisation should be beyond legitimate public scrutiny.

However, the credibility of such scrutiny depends on its methods. Arguments should be supported by evidence, allegations should be clearly distinguished from established facts, and criticism should address conduct rather than descend into personal ridicule.

Pastor Kayanja is a prominent figure in Uganda’s religious community. Through Miracle Centre Cathedral and Robert Kayanja Ministries, he has established a substantial public ministry.

His organisation also identifies humanitarian outreach and community development among its activities.

His public standing does not exempt him from criticism. Equally, it does not make him or his family fair game for humiliation.

The same standards of dignity and fairness that protect ordinary citizens should apply to religious leaders and their relatives.

A person’s appearance, family relationships or private circumstances are not substitutes for evidence in a serious debate about religious integrity.

But defending Pastor Kayanja must also mean defending principle, not excusing every response.Reports of the escalating dispute have included remarks attributed to Kayanja about Gashumba’s fate, as well as personal exchanges involving members of both families. Such developments demonstrate why restraint must be demanded from everyone involved.

Religious conviction should not become a justification for threatening language, just as scepticism about religion should not become an excuse for insults.

Neither side strengthens its position by turning disagreement into a contest of personal humiliation.

If Gashumba believes that certain religious leaders make misleading claims, he should present verifiable evidence and pursue appropriate channels of accountability.

If Kayanja believes that he has been misrepresented or defamed, he should respond with facts, clarification and lawful remedies where appropriate.

The public deserves answers, not an endless exchange of accusations.Most importantly, children and other family members should not become casualties of disputes between adults.

Families do not automatically share responsibility for every public statement made by their relatives.

Dragging children, spouses or other family members into a confrontation risks causing harm unrelated to the original issue.

Public personalities have a particular responsibility to consider the consequences of their words because their statements can reach thousands of people within minutes.

Uganda’s Constitution protects freedom of expression under Article 29, while Article 24 protects respect for human dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

These protections form part of the broader constitutional commitment to individual rights and responsible public life.

The answer is not to silence critics or grant religious leaders immunity. It is to insist that freedom and accountability coexist.Frank Gashumba should be free to question religious practices.

Pastor Kayanja should be free to defend his ministry and reputation. Neither man’s family should be subjected to collective blame or dragged into a dispute simply because of their relationship.

Uganda has more important issues to discuss than the personal destruction of public figures: poverty, unemployment, education, healthcare and the integrity of public institutions.

Public debate should help citizens examine these issues, not encourage hostility for entertainment.The final appeal is therefore straightforward: let Gashumba make his case with evidence, let Kayanja defend his ministry with dignity, and let both families be treated with respect.

Freedom of speech is not a licence to humiliate, and religious leadership is not a licence to intimidate. A mature society must defend both open debate and human dignity.

That is the principle Uganda should uphold—not because one family is more important than another, but because every family deserves respect under the same standard of justice.

mugabib163@gmail.com