The treason case against the leader of Tanzania’s main opposition party, CHADEMA, proceeded today, May 19, 2025, at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court before Principal Resident Magistrate-in-Charge, Franco Kiswaga. The prosecution informed the court that the investigation is in its “final stage”, a statement the court said was “not enough to help the court.”
Unlike the previous hearing, members of the public were allowed to participate today. From early morning, people gathered around the court, waiting for the gate to open. In contrast to earlier sessions, when police arrested individuals attending the proceedings, today the police facilitated entry. Around 8:00 a.m., people queued for inspection and were allowed into the court.
The chairman of CHADEMA is facing two charges at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court: treason and publishing false information. The treason case is currently in the committal stage at Kisutu, after which it will be transferred to the High Court for trial.
During the session, the prosecution, led by Advocate Nassoro Katuga, requested the court to set another date for the hearing, citing that the investigation was not yet complete. This prompted the defense to remind the prosecution of the previous court order, which required the prosecution to present the investigation’s status during the hearing.
“Honorable Principal Resident Magistrate, if I was understood correctly, I said that the investigation of this case is at its final stages. We believe that by the date you will set for us, the investigation will be complete,” Prosecution Counsel Nassoro Katuga argued.
“However, as for what exactly is causing the delay, we cannot disclose it publicly because the investigation involves many matters, including confidential ones,” he continued.
The defense also requested that the accused be allowed to stand in the dock without being surrounded by security personnel.
“We are before you, Your Honor, in respect of Article 13, subsection 6(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, which states that every person who stands charged before the court shall be presumed innocent,” Advocate Rugemeleza Nshala said.
“Indeed, the accused is in remand, but when appearing before you, Your Honor, he should not be in the dock surrounded by officers,” he continued. “Out of respect for the sanctity of the Court, officers surrounding him should step outside and wait. We respectfully ask that your Court issue an order for the accused to be alone in the dock.”
In response to Nshala’s argument, the prosecution emphasized that the security presence was necessary due to the nature of the case.
“On the issue of the constitutional matter, it is true that the accused is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that is indeed what the Constitution says. However, unfortunately, this provision does not specify how an accused person who is under custody should be guarded. The fact that the accused is under guard does not mean that he has already been convicted,” Advocate Katuga said.
He continued: “The guarding of the accused is of his benefit, the benefit of the court, and the court officers. We believe that for the Court proceedings to run smoothly, it is appropriate for our colleagues in security and defense to continue assisting in ensuring his safety, as well as the safety of the Court and its officers. Given the circumstances of this particular case, we are of the view that security should be further reinforced.”
In his rejoinder, Nshala clarified that they were not calling for all security to cease, referencing the presence of snipers and other officers already surrounding the court, but emphasized the need to maintain the court’s dignity.
“This is a person who respects himself, understands the rule of law, and as an advocate, he knows how to conduct himself before the Court. He understands how to uphold the dignity and honor of the Court,” Nshala said.
The defense also addressed the court’s previous order that hearings would be conducted virtually. Defense counsel Peter Kibatala argued that in another case at the same court, the magistrate had ordered the accused’s hearing to be held in open court, and urged the court to use its discretion. The prosecution did not oppose this argument and also called on the court to exercise its wisdom, noting that today’s session had been held physically based on practical considerations.
In conclusion, Principal Magistrate Kiswaga once again ordered the prosecution to complete its investigation in a timely manner, stressing that saying the investigation is in its “final stage” is not a helpful answer to the court. Regarding the accused standing alone in the dock, the magistrate agreed with the defense but directed that a security assessment be conducted to determine whether it is necessary for him to be surrounded by officers.
Regarding the virtual hearing, Magistrate Kiswaga withdrew his previous order and ruled that the accused will be tried in an open court. The case was adjourned to June 2, 2025.
