The treason case facing CHADEMA Chairman, Tundu Lissu, continued today, June 16, 2025, in its preliminary stages at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Principal Resident Magistrate, Franco Kiswaga.

In this case, Tundu Lissu has complained to the Court about not being granted the right to privately consult with his lawyers while in prison. He also stated that he is being held in the section designated for prisoners sentenced to death and is being treated as a condemned inmate.

Tundu Lissu also complained that he has been denied his right to worship and further informed the Court that all prisoners awaiting execution are being denied this legally provided right. In response to these complaints, the Court acknowledged receipt of the information and stated that the matter would be followed up through administrative channels.

Due to the complaints about a lack of privacy with his lawyers, Tundu Lissu has decided that, from today onwards, he will represent himself in court — a decision that the Court has accepted.

The following are the full proceedings that took place in court today, June 16, 2025:

[After the introduction of the counsels, Tundu Lissu raises his hand to request permission to speak]

Advocate Mpale Mpoki [Defense]: I see the accused has raised his hand.

Magistrate: Have you allowed him to speak?

Mpoki: Yes. We have allowed him.

Magistrate: Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor—

Magistrate: Hold on, we’re still dealing with the quorum. Do you want to speak about the quorum?

Lissu: I want to speak regarding my lawyers—my legal representation and how we are proceeding.

Magistrate: Let’s finish with the quorum first.

Mpoki: I’m done with the quorum.

Magistrate: You’re done? Okay. Prosecution?

Nossoro Katuga [Principal State Attorney]: Your Honor, the accused is present and the case is up for mention.

Lissu: Your Honor, as I have indicated, I would like to speak about my legal representation in these proceedings, and what I am about to say, I kindly request it be properly recorded by your court. Your Honor, I have lawyers—by a quick count from how they introduced themselves, I have over 30 lawyers.

Magistrate: Yes.

Lissu: And these lawyers, Your Honor, I chose them myself—they are my lawyers. I chose them because I have trust—full confidence in their ability to represent me in these proceedings, in this case. Many of them I have worked with before; these two elders—Elder Alute and Elder Mpale Mpoki—they raised me professionally. In fact, in Elder Alute’s case, he literally raised me—he took the place of my father, Mr. Lissu. These are lawyers whom, for all the years I’ve known them, have great ability—full confidence.

Now Your Honor, today, as we stand here, it is the 68th day since I was brought before your honorable court and charged with treason. Sixty-eight days. And from the day I was charged with treason, Your Honor, you ordered that I be taken to prison—I was remanded—and for these 68 days, I’ve been in custody: one week at Keko Prison and since Good Friday I’ve been in Ukonga Maximum Prison. In these 68 days, Your Honor, my lawyers have been coming to visit me in prison so we can strategize on how to face these serious charges. They have never stopped coming to court, nor to the prison.

But all the times they’ve come during these 68 days, they have not been allowed—have not been allowed—to see or communicate with me in confidence. They have not been allowed to meet or speak with me privately. What happens, Your Honor, is that when you enter Ukonga Maximum Prison, right after the reception there’s a small room on your right. That room is divided in half by a glass wall. So when they come, they stand behind the glass on the reception side, and I stand on the other side of the glass—we communicate via telephone. There is no opportunity to exchange documents—and I have many documents. There is no opportunity to write anything down because there is no writing table. No chair. We speak on the phone.

Now Your Honor, I have strongly appealed to the Prison Superintendent that, as a remandee with lawyers, I have the right—I repeat, I have the right—to meet with my lawyers in confidence. It is a right. It is not a favor from the prison superintendent—it is a right, as I’ve explained here. But the prison superintendent has denied me that. In fact, Your Honor, there was a lawyer who came to visit me and I made a lot of noise to the prison chief. He told me, If you think the phone is not enough, come sit here in the reception area, which is full of prison officers. He himself remains on the other side of the grilled iron gate.

He is on the other side [Prison Superintendent] and I am on the prison side. We talk while all the prison officers, just like those here, watch me, and everyone listens to what we are discussing. Every prison officer hears what I say. The prison chief said we should talk there with my lawyer and use the phone. But, Your Honor, who else is listening to that phone call? Who knows if someone is on the line, silently eavesdropping? Who knows whether the control room doesn’t have listening devices or bugs that can record my conversations with my lawyers?

Let’s now turn to the law, because this is a court of law.

Your Honor, I want to read you Regulation 13 of the Prisons (Prison Management) Regulations of 1987, published under Government Notice No. 60 of 1987. I will read it in English and explain in Swahili so the public can understand what goes on in prison:

“Every prisoner shall be given all reasonable opportunities of communication with legal advisor or with such other person as the officer in charge may approve as representing the interests of the prisoner, and visits to a prisoner by the legal advisor or such other person shall take place within sight but out of hearing of the prison officer. Within sight; out of hearing, out of hearing.

Now, your honor, this principle, that an accused person and their lawyer must not be overheard by anyone else, is a fundamental part of international law. I also want to refer to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, known as the Mandela Principles. These were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1988, through Resolution 43/173. These principles protect the rights of all persons who are detained or imprisoned.

Principle 18 says that a detained or imprisoned person has the right to communicate and consult with their legal counsel. They must be given sufficient time and facilities for this. That communication must happen without delay, without censorship, and with full confidentiality. This right cannot be suspended or restricted except in rare, clearly defined situations, and even then, only by a court or legal authority—not the prison chief. I will return to that point later, Your Honor.

Now, according to the same regulations, the first right I have as a prisoner is the right to worship. Regulation 14 of the Prison Management Regulations also guarantees this right, and it is echoed in the Mandela Principles. Every Sunday, Christian prisoners—including myself, as I am a Christian—have a right to attend services. At Ukonga Prison, services are held every Sunday and on Christian holidays.

I was brought to Ukonga Prison on Good Friday morning. Immediately, I asked the prison chief to let me pray, but he refused. On Easter Sunday, I asked again to be allowed to pray—he refused. On Easter Monday, I made the same request—he refused again. I have continued to request every Sunday since—including yesterday—and been denied every time. Other prisoners are allowed to pray—except me and a few others whom I will mention later.

Regulation 14 says ‘a minister of religion that is 14(i) a minister of religion shall be admitted at proper and reasonable times to a prison to visit prisoners. A spiritual leader will be allowed in prison at a reasonable time, to visit them, not tell them anything else—not to drink tea with them, because there is no tea—but to provide spiritual service. Muslims have their Friday prayers, and Christians have theirs on Sundays and on Christian holidays. All are allowed—except me, the so-called traitor, who is not even allowed to pray. Not that I can’t pray, but he is not allowed to. 14(ii)A  minister of religion shall be permitted to hold religious services at such hours and in such places as the officer in charge may permit and the officer in charge shall make such arrangements for the holding of religious services and for the religious instruction of prisoners shall not in any way interfere with the routine and administration of the prison.

We are allowed to receive religious instruction—if you haven’t been baptized, confirmed, or received Holy Communion, you are to be taught those matters so that you may be baptized, confirmed, or receive the Body of Christ. It is the law.

And thirdly, it states that attendance at religious services and religious instruction shall be voluntary—it is not mandatory. We are not forced to go to church. You attend if you wish. I have wished to attend, but I have been denied for 68 days.

Therefore, my right to worship has been monstrously violated. My right to worship has been severely violated—a legal right. I have informed my lawyers, and throughout this time, they have fought hard for me, but it has been in vain.

Thirdly, Your Honor, where am I staying in prison? Where do I stay in prison? Ukonga. Your Honor, Ukonga Prison has two main sections. There is a section where all prisoners sentenced to life, 30 years, five years, remandees, and others are supposed to stay. Then there’s a special section called the “speciall wing,” a designated area where prisoners sentenced to death by hanging stay. I stay in that section, where those waiting to be hanged stay. I stay on death row. I have been placed on death row.

Now, Your Honor, what does it mean to be on death row? I want to read you the law, the meaning of being on death row. Regulation 33 talks about those who are on death row. It says this: Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, a prisoner under sentence of death shall (a) be confined apart from other prisoners and shall be under the constant supervision of two prison officers by day and by night.

When you’re on death row as I am, even though I haven’t been sentenced to death—maybe we’ll get there, but not yet—the law still says that those on death row, those sentenced to death, must be separated from other prisoners. From all other prisoners.

I have been on death row since Good Friday until now. And when I go to meet with my lawyers or to see my relatives, I am always accompanied by two officers at all times, as required for those sentenced to death. Just like those who are under constant surveillance—the law says ‘by day and by night.’ I haven’t been sentenced to death, but I am on death row, and I’m under constant surveillance by day and by night.

Being on death row, Your Honor, as I have been, even though you are on death row, you still have rights. According to these laws, for example—I spoke about the right to worship, didn’t I? The right to worship: a prisoner under sentence of death shall be permitted to receive visits by a minister of the religious denomination to which the prisoner belongs. So even death row inmates have the right to worship. But all of us are denied that right. Myself included.

Even though you’ve been sentenced to death, the law says: a prisoner under the sentence of death shall be allowed such amount of exercise as the commissioner may direct. They are allowed to exercise. In the room where I stay, Your Honor, on death row—the death row area is surrounded by a wall, and just behind my cell is a large football field. Every day, prisoners are playing football, walking, those who want to walk, running, those who want to run, exercising, those who want to exercise. Except those on death row. Death row inmates are not allowed outside death row. They have no access to the exercise that the law says they are entitled to.

Now, I can’t play football, Your Honor—my legs are the way they are—but I usually do walking exercises. And ever since I have been on death row, every day from Monday to Friday—I rest on Saturdays and Sundays because God also rested on the seventh day—I rest from exercise. But from Monday to Friday, I walk around those four death row blocks. There are four.

That area I do my walking exercise, Your Honor, is a sewage channel, a place where dirty water flows, and it’s also where death row prisoners wash their clothes and rest when they come out in the morning. I have to negotiate my way in those channels because one of my legs doesn’t work, Your Honor—thanks to unknown assailant. I exercise, I walk every day, but I always have this fear that if I slip there, what will happen? Because those sewage cchannels are meant to carry dirty water, not for prisoners’ exercise. The exercise area is a large field behind death row, but since I entered Ukonga on Good Friday until now, neither I nor any other death row inmate has been allowed to exercise, even though the law says they should be allowed.

Now, Your Honor, I have said that the regulations say prisoners on death row should not mix with other prisoners. What does the Prisons Act say? Chapter 58 of the Prisons Act. Please look at Section 72 of that law, Your Honor.

Section 72 of the Prisons Act: A prisoner under the sentence of death shall be confined apart from other prisoners in a special cell or ward. And the treatment of a prisoner under sentence of death shall be as prescribed. The law says that those of us who are not death row inmates should not stay with those who are on death row. So it is in the Act. It is in the regulations. I have told my lawyers that for the past 68 days, they have tried. They have tried valiantly. They have failed. They have failed.

Now, Your Honor, my lawyers have told me, now I’m focusing on the court, that they have brought these matters before you. My lawyers have told me they have raised this violation of the rights of a prisoner in remand. They have drawn your attention to these unlawful treatments of a remand prisoner. And they have told me the response they received is that the Court does not interfere with prison matters. Now, Your Honor, that stance—if true, if you really said so, Your Honor—that stance is outside the foundations of the laws of this country. It is completely out of step with the law, Your Honor. You are a justice, a visiting justice.

You one of those  who visits prisons. This law says in Section 48—I’m searching, Your Honor, don’t get tired—I will find it—but the import of the provision is that a magistrate is a visiting justice for all prisons under his jurisdiction. You are a visiting justice for all prisons in Dar es Salaam, including Ukonga Central Prison. Why are you a visiting justice?

Because you are a magistrate, you’re a Judicial Officer. And as a judicial officer, your duties do not end when you sentence someone. Your duties continue to supervise the prisoner you sentenced or those you ordered to go to prison or remand. You continue to supervise their treatment while in prison. Let me take you to the Mandela principles (Prison Rules).

Principle four of the Mandela principles:  any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by or be subject to the effective control of a judicial or other authority any form of…yes principle four, I said they are called Mandela principles but their name is the body of principles for the protection of of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment. Any form of detention or imprisonment and all measures affecting the human rights of a person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be ordered by or be subject to the effective control of a judicial or other authority.

I said, Your Honor, that this term “other authority” has been interpreted- I will give you the proper provision where it is defined—but its meaning is that the Court is the one that is supposed to have effective control over prisoners and detainees. Therefore, your responsibility does not end when you say “take him to remand.” Your duty continues. That is why you visit prisons, Your Honor. And I’ve been informed that recently you were at the prison as a visiting justice—I’ve been told, I follow these matters closely. So, Your Honor, the correct legal position is that it is this Court that is supposed to oversee the implementation of the rights of prisoners while they are at Ukonga Central Prison or anywhere else. It is this Court, not the prison authorities.

And I have told my lawyers all of that; they tried valiantly, they fought hard, and they have failed. Therefore, Your Honor, let me not dwell further—there’s more, and if we go to the High Court, we shall meet those other issues there. But for what I have said here, I thank my lawyers—you fought bravely, you fought professionally, you did your duty, and you did it well. It is time to step aside and let me do what I must do.It is time to let me do what I must do. It is my case again. So, Your Honor, from now on, I will be the one responding to the state attorneys. I’m done, Your Honor.

Mpoki:  Your honor, Justice is based on confidence. It’s between him and the […inaudible…]

Magistrate: So, from now on, responses to arguments will be between the state attorneys—representing the Republic—and the accused himself, until such a time as he says otherwise and requests for his lawyers to return, either all or specific ones. But for now, the accused will represent himself as he has requested, and his request has been granted. The defense side has also consented, so from now on it is the prosecution versus the accused.

Lissu: Your Honor, may I ask for one small thing outside of the legal issues? May I have a higher chair so that I can at least write properly, Your Honor? This short one—if I sit here, you can’t even see me.

Magistrate: Get him a chair. Prosecution, many points have been raised by the accused. I trust you’ve recorded them.

[Lissu’s lawyers hand him a certain paper; a prison officer extends his hand to receive it after Lissu does, and Lissu hands it over and explains:]

Lissu: You see, Your Honor, communication with my lawyers must now go through [he points at the prison officer, who then returns the paper to him].

Magistrate: Now listen, I’ve already ruled—I’ve made a ruling that from now on you’ll continue on your own.

[Lissu’s lawyers are discussing something]

Magistrate:What’s the issue there, Mughwai, what’s the issue? What do you say, Mpoki? What’s the issue?

Mpoki: I was just asking if I’m allowed to hand him writing papers or if even that is now forbidden?

Magistrate: Let me give instructions. When you’re in court, security officers, when you’re in court and a lawyer needs to give any document to the accused, he may do so. He should not be prevented—he should not be prevented from receiving them, alright? If there’s any issue, let me know. But it’s not wrong for me to be informed beforehand before something is handed over, just to avoid confusion. Alright? Just to avoid confusion.

Mpoki: Alright, Your Honor.

Magistrate: Prosecution side?

Nossoro Katuga (Principal State Attorney): Your Honor, as we stated, this matter is for mention. Perhaps our only issue is that we have heard a lot from what the accused has told your court. If we understood him correctly, it was mostly aimed at explaining why he no longer wants his lawyers to continue representing him. If we understood well, he was giving reasons for why he now wants to represent himself.

Your Honor, though your honorable court has already ruled to discharge the defense lawyers in this case—and we agree that it’s wise—because Section 310 of the CPA provides the right of an accused person to legal representation in criminal matters. And when a right is given, it’s also your right to reject or accept it.

So, as the Court has ruled that the accused has chosen to forgo this right […] As for the issues he has brought up in court, they are matters that relate directly to the prison service—how he is being treated there. And there has not been any issue raised here that we are required to respond to. That issue has been raised from his side only, meaning the prison service has not been heard regarding what he has said.

As I understand it, Your Honor, I don’t think those issues—about how he is treated there and so on—were brought here for your court to make decisions on. If we understood him correctly (perhaps he’ll repeat), he was giving reasons for removing his lawyers—not rejecting them, just removing them—and deciding to represent himself.

But if there’s an issue that he believes the prison service has failed to act on according to the law, we say he still has a legal right to seek prerogative orders. Specifically, he can seek mandamus. He is a lawyer, as he introduced himself, and says he’s experienced—it’s true, our brother is a seasoned lawyer—and he knows what is required to file for such remedies in the appropriate court or a court with the jurisdiction to hear such a mandamus, right?

And Your Honor, such applications are made under Rule 4—Rule 4 of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedures and Fees) Rules of 2014. Rule 4 explains what someone who wants to apply for judicial review should do and also gives direct […].

And by using such an application, or these types of proceedings, that is when both sides will be afforded the right to be heard. Not in the manner that your court is currently receiving information from only one side. Because if laws exist—as he was citing them—and the authority has not followed them or fulfilled its duties, and he believes that to be the case, then he should follow the appropriate legal procedures, especially as he is a lawyer. Instead of requesting your court to issue orders—which, in this context, would be orders of mandamus—which is not the correct way to apply for such remedies.

So, implicitly, it appears as if an application for a prerogative order has been brought without a formal application. Therefore, from the prosecution’s perspective, we see that continuing to respond to the accusations he has brought—like saying a certain authority is not doing this or that, or not affording certain rights—would put us into a trap. A trap that could lead this court to make decisions or issue orders that are not within its jurisdiction.

Such prerogative orders are issued through special applications, as I’ve informed your honorable court, and through specific procedures that ensure both sides are given the opportunity to be heard. If that procedure is followed, and it’s truly found that someone is condemned unlawfully, or something is wrong, then we can deal with that accordingly. But so far, we have only heard one side, verbally, without hearing the other side.

Therefore, our view is that if there are such complaints, the appropriate legal framework should be used to bring those forward. If it is established that an officer or authority has failed to perform their lawful duty, then they can be compelled to do so—but by following due legal process. Everything is governed by law.

Otherwise, let us leave that point and return to the prosecution’s request for today. Your Honor, I submit, as previously explained, that today’s session was meant for the mention of the case before you.

Lissu: Your Honour, I need to respond to what has been said. He can’t go on by himslef

Magistrate:Have you finished?

Nassoro Katuga (Principal State Attorney): Your Honour, on which particular issue?

Magistrate:
On the accused’s submission… [inaudible].

Nassoro Katuga:Your Honour, regarding the complaints raised against the Prison Service, our position remains that proper procedures must be followed so that the other party—our colleagues in the Prisons Department—are given an opportunity to be heard. Otherwise, your court may end up issuing directives that are procedurally improper or unintended. We have concluded our submissions on that matter.

Lissu: Your Honour, I have carefully listened to the learned Principal State Attorney, and I wish to respond briefly. I am fully aware of the procedure for applying for an order of mandamus—I have not forgotten it, nor do I not know it. I have not applied for mandamus, not because I don’t know how.

Your Honour, I stated earlier that in law, this court retains effective control over a detainee or the prison. I said, Your Honour, that you are a visiting justice. I also said I would cite the legal provision—Section 101 of the Prisons Act, subsection 5, which states:

“Every Area Commissioner, Magistrate, and Justice of the Peace shall be an ex officio visiting justice of all prisons within their respective areas of jurisdiction.”

What I have done is submit a report to a visiting justice. I am simply requesting: do your duty.

Magistrate: Counsel, do you understand? This is a report.

Lissu: If I had intended to make a formal application, I would have filed one. I have submitted a report to a visiting justice. So, do you understand now, learned State Attorney?

Nassoro Katuga: Your Honour, my understanding from the outset was indeed that he sought to discharge his lawyers. But then, the conversation expanded to include many other issues—particularly concerning the conditions of his detention. So I stated that if such matters are being raised, the responsible authorities should be given a chance to respond, rather than having your Honour assess them unilaterally.

But now that it has been clarified that it was merely a report submitted to the court in its capacity as a visiting justice—then, indeed, a report is not something that requires a reply. If it was merely a report, then even your Honour wouldn’t have had to call upon us to respond, correct? Since it wasn’t an application or anything of the sort. Therefore, if it is just a report, Your Honour, we expect the court simply to acknowledge receipt. Proceed, Counsel.

Lissu:
That’s all, Your Honour. That is all.

Magistrate:
Very well, let me state for the record: your submissions, since they constitute a report, have been received and will be handled administratively.

Lissu:
Thank you.

Magistrate:
Not judicially—administratively. That’s entirely correct. This court routinely conducts prison inspections, and I, personally, as the officer in charge, have conducted such visits. So, your report will be dealt with administratively. Understood?

Lissu:
Thank you.