Frank Gashumba and Pastor Robert Kayanja of Rubaga Miracle Centre Cathedral
Frank Gashumba’s challenge to Uganda’s miracle-working pastors to demonstrate their powers by healing critically ill patients has ignited a fierce debate over faith, money, spiritual authority and the place of miracles in Christianity. As prominent preachers defend their ministries, the dispute has expanded into a broader confrontation over tithes, prayer sessions and what should count as evidence of divine healing.
The confrontation began with social commentator Frank Gashumba challenging pastors who claim to perform miracles to demonstrate their healing powers in hospitals, where patients are battling serious illnesses.
Rather than stage another church crusade, Gashumba wants the preachers to visit facilities such as Mulago, Nsambya and Mengo hospitals and pray for patients whose conditions are critical.
“Let us look for a neutral person and put Shs500 million there. If you say you can heal people, demonstrate it. Let people see what you can actually do,” he said.
He questioned why pastors who claim to heal the sick do not take their ministries to hospitals, where patients and their families are desperate for recovery.
“Every day people are dying at Mulago, and there is even a mortuary there. If you say you can heal people, why don’t you go there and heal those who are sick?”
Gashumba has indicated that he would accept Christianity and publicly apologise if a preacher demonstrated the ability to heal a critically ill patient instantly.
His challenge has placed miracle claims under public scrutiny, while also provoking a response from believers who argue that faith cannot be reduced to a public contest or a cash wager.
Reports about the challenge have referred to different amounts, including an initial Shs200 million and a later Shs500 million proposal. The larger figure has become the defining amount in the public debate, but no completed hospital test or payment of the money has been established.
Pastor Robert Kayanja has defended the authenticity of miracles, rejecting the suggestion that claims of supernatural healing should be dismissed as deception.
“Our miracles are not fake. They are God made. It is biblical that you have to be born again to have them,” Kayanja said.
He also warned believers against dismissing the claims of people who say they have experienced miracles.
“Do not listen to the foolishness of a person claiming there are no miracles.”
Kayanja warned against lumpens on social media, telling his flock to stick to the Word of God.
Referencing the Bible, Pastor Kayanja further made it clear that miracles are food for children, suggesting that those who refused to become children of God should forget about miracles.
The exchange exposes a fundamental disagreement over how miraculous healing should be understood. For believers who testify to divine intervention, healing can be an expression of faith and God’s power. For Gashumba, claims of extraordinary physical healing should be demonstrated in a way that can be observed and assessed beyond the pulpit.
The disagreement is not simply about whether Christians believe in miracles. It is also about what happens when a preacher makes a specific claim about healing and a sceptic demands proof.
Bishop David Kiganda of Christianity Focus has defended the place of faith in Christian life while pointing to the social work associated with his ministry.
Recounting his early days in Kisenyi, Kiganda said his church had encountered women involved in prostitution and that its work extended beyond preaching.
“When I started my church in Kisenyi, there were about eight camps of women involved in prostitution, with approximately 30 women in each camp,” he said.
Kiganda also invoked the biblical account of Jesus being tempted by the devil to argue that Christians are not obliged to prove their faith whenever a sceptic demands it.
His position highlights another side of the argument: pastors believe their ministries should be assessed not only through claims of miraculous healing but also through their spiritual work and the lives they say they have helped transform.
However, social and charitable work does not, by itself, establish whether a particular claim of miraculous healing is genuine. The two questions can be considered separately without dismissing the contribution a church may make to its community.
Pastor Juma Mulokole was reported to have indicated a willingness to engage with Gashumba’s challenge.
It is said that Mulokole travelled to Kampala carrying Shs100 million and asked Gashumba to identify a patient in a hospital for prayer.
The reported development brought the dispute closer to the practical test Gashumba has been demanding: identifying a patient, establishing the patient’s condition and determining what happens after prayer.
However, the reported willingness to engage should not be confused with proof that the proposed test was completed. There is no established account of a verified hospital demonstration, a confirmed instant healing or a payout arising from the challenge.
The distinction matters because the debate has generated dramatic claims and counterclaims, but the central question remains unresolved: what would constitute convincing evidence that a miracle had occurred?
Singer Grace Nakimera has questioned Gashumba’s approach, even while acknowledging that his challenge could serve a useful purpose if it helped distinguish genuine religious ministry from exploitation.
“I don’t know his motive, whether he wants to separate the fake pastors from the genuine ones, which would be a good thing, but the language he is using is wrong,” Nakimera said.
She also recounted a personal experience in which, after consulting doctors without receiving an explanation for her condition, she went to church, received prayer and later recovered.
Her account reflects the way many believers understand healing: as a personal experience in which prayer and faith play a central role. It remains a personal testimony, rather than independently verified medical evidence establishing that a miracle occurred.
Nakimera also warned about the consequences of living without God, saying: “No matter how successful you are or what you do, if it is without God and you invite the devil into your house, it can never end well.”
Her response illustrates the tension running through the dispute. Some believers may agree that religious leaders should be held accountable while objecting to language they consider disrespectful towards pastors and the Christian faith.
The argument has expanded beyond healing to the financial expectations churches place on their followers.
Gashumba has questioned the practice of giving tithes to religious leaders, arguing that his own contributions to society take other forms.
“How can I ever pay tithe? I pay my offertory in the Catholic Church. I pay school fees for so many children. If I find a boda boda person at a fuel station, I will pay for their full tank. I buy people food,” he said.
He then challenged the idea that giving money to a religious leader should be treated as an obligation.
“And now you want me to get my money and give it to an apostle or a prophet?”
The remarks bring another sensitive issue into the debate: the relationship between religious teaching, personal giving and financial accountability.
For many Christians, tithing and offerings are expressions of faith and obedience to biblical teaching. Others question how church collections are managed, what financial information congregations should receive and whether some followers face undue pressure to give.
Those questions are not proof that all pastors misuse church funds. Equally, the religious significance of giving does not make questions about financial transparency illegitimate.
Gashumba’s criticism is directed at the way he believes some religious leaders solicit money, but the broader debate concerns the responsibilities of both church leaders and congregations when money is collected in the name of faith.
Gashumba’s opposition to certain churches has also entered his family life.
Speaking about his wife, Patience Mutoni Malaika, he said he had warned her against attending the churches he criticises.
“I have told Malaika that if I ever hear that she went to one of those churches, I will leave this home and go,” he said.
The remark illustrates how deeply the dispute has moved beyond a public argument between a sceptic and religious leaders. It has become a question of personal conviction, family relationships and the boundaries people draw around religious choices.
It also raises a different question from the one at the centre of the miracle challenge: how should people with sharply different religious views manage those differences within their homes?
Gashumba’s statement reflects the intensity of his opposition to the ministries he has targeted. It does not, on its own, establish that every church or pastor he criticises engages in wrongdoing.
On October 12, 2026, Gashumba intensified his criticism during an appearance on Radio 4, describing the pastors he was challenging in particularly harsh terms.
“These (pastors) are crooks; these are thugs and there is nothing they will do to me. I saw all of them coming after me. My wife says she is worried,” he said.
He added that confronting the preachers was part of what he considered a wider responsibility to speak out about problems in the country.
“But I told her, don’t you know that you married in a literal struggle? This is what I do every day. We have an obligation and a duty to correct the nation.”
The comments show that Gashumba does not intend to retreat from the confrontation despite anticipating a backlash. They also underline the difficulty of separating a challenge to specific religious claims from a sweeping attack on pastors as a group.
Calling religious leaders “crooks” and “thugs” is Gashumba’s characterisation, not proof that every pastor targeted has committed a crime. The allegations require evidence specific to the individuals and conduct in question.
At the same time, the heated language has helped turn the dispute into a wider public argument about the influence of religious leaders and the extent to which they should be questioned.
Gashumba’s criticism extends to repeated prayer sessions, the language used to describe church followers and the presence of foreign preachers who hold miracle crusades in Uganda.
He has questioned the practice of believers returning repeatedly for prayers and challenged the use of the word “sheep” to describe followers, arguing against what he sees as unquestioning obedience to religious leaders.
He has also criticised foreign preachers who arrive to conduct miracle crusades, raising questions about the claims made at such gatherings and the expectations created among people seeking healing.
These concerns touch on the relationship between religious authority and vulnerable believers. People facing illness, financial hardship or family problems may turn to churches for spiritual support, community and hope. That trust makes clear communication and accountability especially important.
But prayer meetings, religious terminology and international evangelism are not, by themselves, evidence of fraud. The relevant questions concern what individual preachers promise, whether they misrepresent their abilities, how money is solicited and whether followers are misled or harmed.
A fair assessment must distinguish between the right to practise and preach religion and specific conduct that can be tested against evidence.
At the heart of the Gashumba-Basumba confrontation is a question that goes beyond the personalities involved: how should claims of miraculous healing be evaluated?
A public demonstration involving a critically ill patient would raise practical questions. What was the patient’s diagnosis before the prayer? What medical evidence establishes the severity of the illness? What exactly was claimed to have happened? Was the patient examined afterwards, and did qualified medical professionals document a change in the condition?
Without a clear process, competing sides could interpret the same event differently. A preacher might describe an improvement as a miracle, while a sceptic might question the diagnosis, the timing or whether the recovery was attributable to prayer.
A credible assessment would require the patient’s informed consent, respect for medical privacy, independent medical documentation and a clear distinction between a spiritual interpretation and a medically established outcome. Treatment should not be withheld or delayed to stage a public test.
These considerations do not require believers to abandon their faith. Nor do they prevent the public from asking questions about claims made by religious leaders. They help separate personal testimony, religious conviction and verifiable evidence.
The debate also calls for care in describing pastors collectively. If a particular preacher is accused of deception, the accusation should be examined on its own evidence rather than treated as proof against all Balokole or all Christian ministries.
Gashumba’s challenge has forced a public conversation about miracle claims, church finances, religious authority and the responsibilities of people who command the trust of congregations.
Pastors including Kayanja and Kiganda have defended the place of miracles and faith, while Nakimera has questioned Gashumba’s language and recounted her own experience of prayer and recovery. Mulokole was reported to have shown willingness to engage with the challenge, but a completed and independently verified hospital test has not been established.
The Shs500 million figure has become the most attention-grabbing part of the confrontation. Yet the money is not the only issue at stake. The deeper dispute concerns what religious leaders should be expected to explain, what believers are entitled to question and how claims involving the sick should be handled responsibly.
For now, the public has heard a challenge, forceful rebuttals and personal testimonies. The central test Gashumba has demanded remains unresolved: a clearly documented demonstration that establishes what happened to a patient, without substituting publicity or competing assertions for evidence.
Census figures suggest that the Balokole religion has grown significantly as thousands appear to have crossed from mainstream religions like Catholic and Anglican faiths among others to become balokole. (See Details Here and There).
The Balokole and their pastors have in recent years been criticized by non-Balokole, and been labelled all manner of names. See related reporting Here and There.
FAKE UNEB PAPERS: Scammers Remanded for Trading Fake UCE Papers
We Paid Sh10m-Shs50m Bribes but Were Denied Government Jobs: Angry Applicants Pin District Bosses at…
BOLD PREDICTIONS: Museveni and Muhoozi Will Not Be in Power by June 2027 — Kabuleta
STOP BEING MARCO RUBIO'S PARROT? Two Museveni Ministers Disagree on Move to Quit ICC
THINGS CHANGE FAST! Museveni Throws Stephen Nuwagaba Out of State House, Withdraws His Security Detail…
UGANDA AFTER MUSEVENI: UPDF Explains How Uganda's Next President Will be Chosen as it Blasts…