UCC Bans Split-Screen Advertising on NBS TV, Sets Precedent for All TV Stations Regulator rules split-screen ads during news and current affairs breach UCC Advertising Standards 2019, orders immediate compliance and warns of sanctions.

The Uganda Communications Commission has banned NBS Television from airing split-screen adverts during its news and current affairs programmes, ruling that the practice violates the UCC Advertising Standards 2019 and the Uganda Communications Act.

In a decision that now sets a binding precedent for the wider broadcasting industry, the regulator has also directed all television stations in Uganda to immediately stop the practice during news and current affairs programming.

The decision follows an arbitral complaint filed by Adlegal International Limited against NBS Television Limited, accusing the broadcaster of repeatedly violating the Uganda Communications Commission Advertising Standards 2019 by airing split-screen advertisements during current affairs programmes.

The dispute began on January 23, 2025, when Adlegal lodged a formal complaint with the regulator, arguing that NBS had repeatedly introduced advertising content on the same screen while news discussion, political debate and programme analysis were ongoing.

Adlegal maintained that such practices risk confusing viewers and eroding trust in broadcast journalism by blurring the separation between commercial interests and editorial independence.

In its filings, the complainant sought declarations that the broadcaster’s conduct violated the UCC Advertising Standards, breached obligations under Uganda’s communications law framework, and infringed consumer and audience rights.

Adlegal also urged the Commission to compel NBS to stop the practice and to commit to compliance measures going forward.

UCC formally notified NBS of the complaint on April 4, 2025, requesting a written response.

The broadcaster submitted its reply on April 7, disputing that it had breached the Standards and raising what it described as wider issues about how advertising rules should be interpreted in a rapidly changing media environment.

The Commission convened a meeting between both parties on May 20, 2025, at its offices in Bugolobi, where lawyers, executives and editorial representatives appeared.

UCC later allowed additional written submissions, with NBS filing further arguments on December 1, 2025, and Adlegal responding with a rejoinder dated December 5.

By the time the ruling was delivered in January 2026, the complaint had become one of the clearest tests yet of how Uganda’s advertising regulations apply to modern broadcast monetisation formats, particularly those designed to generate revenue without interrupting programming through traditional commercial breaks.

In its decision, UCC framed the dispute around three central questions: whether it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint, whether NBS breached the Advertising Standards and the Uganda Communications Act by broadcasting split-screen adverts during news and current affairs programmes, and what rights and remedies were available to the parties.

On the issue of jurisdiction, the Commission affirmed that it had full authority to arbitrate the complaint, citing its statutory mandate to regulate communications services, enforce broadcasting standards, and protect audiences as consumers of media content.

UCC noted that complaints relating to advertising conduct and broadcast practices fall squarely within its oversight role, particularly where the public interest is engaged.

The heart of the dispute lay in the broadcaster’s attempt to distinguish between split-screen advertising, which is explicitly addressed in the Standards, and squeeze-backs, which NBS argued were a separate technique.

Adlegal’s position was straightforward: the Advertising Standards prohibit split-screen adverts in news and current affairs programmes, and the broadcaster’s practice violated that prohibition.

NBS, however, insisted that what it aired were squeeze-backs rather than split-screen adverts. The broadcaster described squeeze-backs as a format in which the main programme image is temporarily reduced in size to allow an advertising panel or graphic to appear beside it while the programme continues.

NBS argued that this technique should not be treated as the kind of split-screen advertising barred by the Standards.

Beyond the definitional argument, NBS raised broader policy concerns, suggesting that evolving advertising formats have become increasingly necessary for media sustainability as broadcasters face economic pressure, competition for advertising budgets, and changing audience behaviour.

The broadcaster implied that the Standards may require review to reflect contemporary realities of broadcasting and monetisation.

The Commission rejected NBS’s attempt to draw a legal distinction between squeeze-backs and split-screen advertising.

UCC relied on the definition contained in the Advertising Standards, which describe split-screen advertising as a technique that allows simultaneous presentation of editorial and commercial information on the same screen, divided into parts.

The Commission held that what NBS described as squeeze-backs fell squarely within this definition because the screen was divided and commercial content appeared alongside editorial programming.

UCC further referred to Annex 7 of the Standards, which outlines the operational rules governing split-screen advertising.

While the Standards permit split-screen adverts in certain contexts, they explicitly prohibit them during news and current affairs programming.

The annex also provides that only one split-screen advertisement may appear at any given time, underscoring the regulator’s intention to limit the practice even where permitted.

Crucially, the Commission noted that NBS did not deny broadcasting squeeze-backs during current affairs programmes, but rather argued that the practice should be treated differently.

UCC concluded that the naming or branding of the technique does not alter its regulatory character.

If commercial content appears alongside editorial content on the same screen during prohibited programming, it constitutes split-screen advertising under the Standards.

At the core of UCC’s reasoning was the principle of consumer protection and audience clarity.

The Commission stressed that viewers have a right to be able to distinguish advertising from editorial content, particularly in programmes that shape public understanding of national affairs, politics and governance.

News and current affairs programming, the Commission observed, occupies a special place in society because it informs democratic participation and provides analysis of matters of public concern.

Allowing commercial advertising to share the screen during such programmes risks confusing audiences, distracting attention, and weakening editorial integrity.

In reinforcing its interpretation, UCC cited persuasive international guidance, referencing jurisprudence that emphasises the importance of separating advertising from editorial material so that viewers are not misled.

After reviewing submissions from both parties, the Commission held that NBS breached the Advertising Standards and its broader broadcasting obligations under Uganda’s communications framework.

The ruling specifically found that NBS aired split-screen advertising during programmes categorised as current affairs, including Morning Breeze, NBS Frontline and NBS Eagles.

The Commission clarified that current affairs programmes are those involving debate, explanation and analysis of current events and issues of public concern, making them subject to heightened advertising restrictions.

In terms of remedies, UCC issued a firm directive ordering NBS to immediately cease and desist from broadcasting split-screen adverts, including squeeze-backs, during news and all current affairs programmes.

The Commission warned that failure to comply could expose the broadcaster to regulatory sanctions within UCC’s enforcement powers.

While Adlegal sought additional remedies, including corrective statements and declarations, UCC found it unnecessary to award costs or impose monetary penalties within the decision.

Instead, the Commission focused on compliance and the preservation of a clear boundary between journalism and commercial messaging.

The ruling carries wider implications beyond NBS, serving as a regulatory signal to Uganda’s broadcast sector at a time when media houses are experimenting with new advertising formats to sustain revenue.

Split-screen adverts and squeeze-back techniques have become attractive because they allow broadcasters to monetise attention without pulling audiences away into commercial breaks.

However, UCC’s decision establishes that innovation in advertising must remain within the limits of existing regulation, especially in programming categories central to public information.

The Commission acknowledged the economic realities facing broadcasters, noting arguments that media organisations operate under financial strain and must adapt to shifting advertising markets.

Yet UCC’s bottom line was unequivocal: until the Standards are reviewed or amended, broadcasters must comply with the law as written.

The decision effectively designates news and current affairs as high-integrity zones where advertising must not intrude visually into editorial space.

The Commission noted that parties aggrieved by the ruling have the right to appeal within 30 days.