The treason case against the opposition party leader, CHADEMA’s Tundu Lissu, continued on July 1, 2025, during its preliminary stage at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Principal Resident Magistrate Franco Kiswaga. The prosecution requested another adjournment, prompting an exchange with Lissu, who is representing himself. Lissu called on the state to enter a nolle prosequi, and asked court to compel them to do so. Read the extract below of the exchange:
Nasoro Katuga: Your Honour, the case is coming up for mention.
Magistrate: The accused?
Lissu: I am present, Your Honour, and I am ready.
Nassoro Katuga (Prosecution Counsel): Your Honour, the case is before the court for mention, and after the case was read and a legal opinion was issued, it is now at the decision stage — the stage of deciding whether to prosecute or not. Therefore, Your Honour, we were requesting another date to come and inform the Court of the decision that has been made.
Lissu: Thank you very much your Honour,this case not be adjourned beyond today. There is no valid reason to allow another adjournment. Your Honour, the Principal State Attorney and his fellow counsels informed this Court that the investigation was complete. The file has already been sent to the DPP for a decision. It was sent before June 16.
Your Honour, I believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) did not study under a mango tree like my late mother… he knows how to read, he studied law, and he has experience in these matters. How much time does it take — how much time is needed — to be satisfied whether there is a case to take to the High Court, or not? If not, then bring a nolle prosequi (formal notice of dropping charges).
How long does it take the Director of Public Prosecutions, who possesses the qualifications outlined in this Constitution — a lawyer who has practiced law for not less than 15 years, if I’m not mistaken — how long does it take to read this case file? So that he can inform your Honourable Court whether there is sufficient evidence to file an information in the High Court, or there is no evidence and he should file a nolle prosequi — that is, bring a nolle before the Court.
Now, Your Honour, I would like to speak briefly about the law. The relevant provision — the relevant provision is the one cited by the Principal State Attorney on the 16th of last month. Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Act, subsection 4 and subsection 5 — I want us to start from there.
Your Honour, subsection 4 of Section 245 states that once the investigation is complete, the DPP or his representatives — that is, these ones here, not the DPP himself but these ones…
Magistrate: The accused, use the language of the Court. In the language of the Court, there is no such term as “these ones.”
Lissu: Alright. The DPP or State Attorneys — the Law Officers — are given the file after the investigation is complete so they can decide whether this investigation has substantial evidence to proceed to the High Court or not. That has already been done.
What we expected to be told today — and what I am asking you, Your Honour, to compel them to say — and I will come to how you can compel them — what we expected today is for subsection 5 of section 245 to come into play. And this section states that, Your Honour, the government prosecutor or another public officer — that is, these State Attorneys — after examining the file submitted to them under subsection 4.
After receiving the file and the witness statements, if the State Attorney — whether it is the DPP or his state attorneys — finds that the evidence available is not sufficient, the law states that he shall immediately enter a nolle prosequi. Immediately. That was the first option we expected them to inform us about today.
The file is complete, we have read it, and there is no sufficient evidence. They should enter an immediate nolle prosequi. The law uses the word shall immediately. If that is not the case, the second possibility is that the DPP or his state attorneys believe that further evidence might be found, if they have reason to believe that additional investigation could change the position, then they can request an adjournment and time for further investigation. They only have two options: enter an immediate Nolle prosequi, request adjournment for further investigation, those are the only two options they have under the law.
The DPP’s office and his entire team of lawyers cannot read a file for the whole month. That would mean we are allowing slackness that we should not tolerate for even a minute. Your Honour, my argument is that if they believe there is sufficient evidence, they should proceed by filing the information in the High Court. If there is no evidence, then they should enter a nolle prosequi now — immediately.
Your Honour, today is my 83rd day in prison — 83 days — and next week I will reach 90 days in prison. Now, Your Honour, there are people who don’t understand. For those who don’t understand, they think this is the first treason case in this country. But this is not the first treason case in this country. We have examples of treason cases in this country, and we have examples of how treason cases are investigated and prosecuted.
They should not behave as if this is the first treason case in this country. Your Honour, the first treason case in the United Republic of Tanzania was filed 55 years ago. I expected that they would have read it — though I’m not sure they have.
That first treason case, Your Honour, was even written about by the university — the Faculty of Law at the University of Dar es Salaam, my alma mater, I’m proud to say. Tanzania’s First Treason Trial — in the High Court — was criminal case number 685 of 1970. In 1970, criminal case number 685 of 1970.
And the sessions case — criminal sessions case number 103 of the same year by Chief Justice Telford Georges. And in the East African Court of Appeal, Your Honour, this case is reported under the name Gray Likungu Mataka and Others vs. The Republic, 1971 EA 495. This case, Your Honour, was our country’s first treason case. It involved nine accused persons — and this is very important — while the current one has only a single accused person.
Our first treason case had nine accused persons, including ministers Michael Mobrey Kamaliza and Bibi Titi Mohammed. It also involved military officers such as Captain John Dustan Lifa Chipaka and Lieutenant William Magori Chacha, as well as five well-known members like Michael Kamaliza, Bibi Titi Mohammed, and others. It was a major case. Now, Your Honour, if you read the judgment of the East African Court of Appeal — the judgment by President Duffus.
President Duffus said on page 495 that this major case in the High Court, through all its stages—from committal to the High Court to the East African Court of Appeal—took six months and seventeen days. Six months and seventeen days. Between the time the accused were arrested in April 1970 and when the East African Court of Appeal decided the appeal, it was six months and seventeen days, and there were nine accused persons.
The events complained of as treason took place partly in England. Oscar Kambona was in England, and some other events happened in Kenya. Gray Mataka and his colleagues were going to Kenya to plan conspiracies to overthrow the government and to kill Nyerere, and some other events happened in Dar es Salaam. It was a complicated case, between the arrest of the accused persons and the court of appeal decision, it took six months and 17 days.
Your Honour, this case — if it were conducted this day, it would take 20 years with this kind of procedure. But it took six months because people were working, because people knew that our Constitution says treason under Article 28, subsection 4, and treason as defined by law is the highest offense against the United Republic. People took treason seriously. These State Attorneys, Your Honour, have not taken this case seriously at all. We are finishing three months, and we have not even started. The big case took six months and seventeen days to conclude in the Court of Appeal because people worked.
Our second treason case, Your Honour Magistrate, is the case of Hatibu Gandhi and others versus the Republic. It is reported in 1996 TLR number 12. It involved 19 accused persons, including nine military officers, while the rest were civilians. The alleged treason involved an attempt to overthrow the government using the military and to assassinate the President of the United Republic.
That case, Your Honour, involved events that took place partly in Kenya — Uncle Tom Lugangira was in Kenya, and Tamim Mohammed Tamim, if I’m not mistaken, was also in Kenya. Others like Kadego, Makunda, and others were at Lugalo; others at Dewi, Navy in Kigamboni; others in Monduli; some in camps in Tabora; and others in Nachingwea.
This was a major major treason what….
According to the judgment of Chief Justice Nyalali, Your Honour, we will look at pages 14 and 15. Chief Justice Francis Nyalali stated that in this case at the High Court, the court required 140 witnesses — 97 for the prosecution and 43 for the defense. The trial record consisted of 14 volumes, and the judges’ notes alone were four volumes. It was a major treason trial that lasted one year and seventeen days, according to the judgment of Chief Justice Francis Nyalali on pages 13, 14, and 15. A big case like that took one year and seventeen days between committal, High Court, and Court of Appeal.
We haven’t even started the committal stage yet, and we are already approaching day 90, with just one accused person. If such a case were held today, you go to retirement, and for me I might even be dead, as they keep telling us to adjourn — these State Attorneys with their current procedures. So, Your Honour, we are being played with. People are not working; they bring big charges, and only then do they start asking, “Where is the evidence?”
These two cases, Your Honour — the two big cases I mentioned that took place under those circumstances —how was technology 55 years ago? 1970 or 1982, 1983 compared to today, but people took treason cases seriously; they worked tenaciously, they worked timely. Justice was delivered in good time. We are at day 83 now; I am in prison today on day 83, and we are still being asked to adjourn.
Now, Your Honour, I request that we ask ourselves, and your court asks itself: this charge states that the accused is just one person. It would be the first time in world history that a single individual alone is accused of committing treason. It is the first time in world history that one person is being charged with treason.
Now they say it’s one person whose alleged treason happened on one day — they mentioned the date, April 3rd. One day. At a press conference attended by members of the press, members [of the arty], everyone was there; it was broadcast live. The words they call treason they have mention, what are they investigating?
What are they investigating? What is it that is taking so long? Your Honour, actually, we know — and it is on record, it is in the court record — that this case, that meeting alleged to be treasonous, was investigated and was examined in just four days. They brought a witness here who said, “I investigated from the 4th, the 8th, and on the 9th [April] I was arrested.
Magistrate: Wait, has the witness come here?
Lissu: He has come to the court. Aren’t there two cases, Your Honour?
Magistrate: Now, this one is different from the other.
Lissu: Well, they are connected. If you want to say they are not connected, they are.
Magistrate: No, let’s make the record clear. This case has not yet started being heard. We are still at the committing stage.
Lissu: Fine, fine. What I’m saying is that in the case arising from the same event, the same transaction, the same day, the same person—in fact, the same meeting—they said it was investigated by one person called Assistant Inspector John.
Magistrate: I repeat again, I repeat again. This case has not yet started to be heard; we are still at the committing stage. Okay?
Lissu: I just want, Your Honour, for it to be on record, I am not asking you to make a decision on that one. I just want you to put on record that actually we know the games they are playing. It was investigated in four days—that’s why on the 9th I was arrested, and on the 10th I was charged. Now, they are talking about three months later—what is this if it is not an abuse of the court process?
Your Honour, the DPP, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the criminal prosecutor of this country, has a constitutional duty. He has a constitutional duty to ensure that the prosecution system is not misused to oppress people, not misused to harm people.
Article 59(b) (iv) of the Constitution states: In exercising his authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall be independent, shall not be interfered with by any person or authority, and shall take into account the following: (a) the intention to do justice, (b) preventing the abuse of the legal process, and (c) the public interest.
Magistrate: Continue.
Lissu: And that duty, Your Honour, is also a legal duty according to the National Prosecution Service Act, Section 8. In the exercise of powers and performance of his functions, the Director shall observe the following principles, namely: (a) the need to do justice, (b) the need to prevent abuse of the legal process, and (c) the public interest.
If major treason cases took six months and seventeen days fifty-five years ago, or one year and seventeen days forty-two years ago . Your Honour, what justice is being served here? That intention to do justice, where is it? After 90 days, we haven’t even started, yet we are being adjourned. Where is that need to do justice?
Where is the need to prevent the misuse of the judicial system or the prosecution system, and what public interests are involved here? What public interests justify this kind of negligence?
And Honorable, lest I forget, there is another constitutional duty of your honorable court. Article 107, capital A, subsection (b), when delivering judgments on civil and criminal cases, the courts shall follow the following principle, namely: (b) not to delay dispensation of justice without reasonable ground. Honorable, if you allow another adjournment, in my opinion, you will have violated the constitutional duty of your esteemed court to ensure that justice is not delayed without valid reasons.
So, what should we do? And what exactly am I asking your esteemed court to do? Number one, Honorable magistrate, I request that your honorable court order these government lawyers to inform the court, after having had this file for the weeks they have had it, whether the evidence is sufficient. If the evidence is sufficient, then refer the matter to the High Court so that we can meet before a judge.
That is number one, and it’s referring to section 245(v). If they see that the investigation or evidence they have obtained is insufficient, the honorable court should order— not just give advice but issue an order — that they should enter a Nolle Prosequi immediately, as section 245(v) states. There are two options: if there is evidence, send the file to the High Court; if the evidence is insufficient, immediately enter Nolle Prosequi. It is not another adjournment.
Honorable, I understand, so they don’t say I have forgotten—I understand that under section 245(v), the prosecution can apply for more time to investigate, if the evidence they have is insufficient. They have the ability under section 245 to request more time for investigation.
Now, Honorable, there are two points I want you to consider. One is that they have not said they need more evidence; they have not said that, so that option does not exist. They have not said so; therefore, we return to the options, which are either an immediate Nolle Prosequi or filing information in the High Court.
Honorable, the provision that allows requesting additional investigation time states that if there is reason to believe, there is reason to believe that further investigations will change the position. If there are reasons to believe that further investigation will change the current lack of sufficient evidence, then they can request an adjournment. I have said they have not requested it, but even if they did say there are reasons, Honorable, I would ask you to tell them to present those reasons here; they have a duty in law to give reasons.
So, it’s not just about wanting to adjourn that we need evidence. Give reasons that make you believe that additional days, having failed to investigate one person’s case for three months additional days will enable that work to be done. Give reasons to the court, as there is a duty to give reasons. And the cases here, Honorable, are Mohamed Jawad Mruj versus Minister for Home Affairs, 1996, page 142, Mr. Justice Makanja at page 142, and the second case, Honorable, is Tanzania Air Services Limited versus the Minister for Labor and others.
Magistrate: Repeat again
Tanzania Air Services Limited versus Minister for Labor and two others, 1996 TLR 217, Judge Barnabas Albert Samatta. If they believe there is still something, let them provide those reasons here
Therefore, Honorable, I would like to conclude by saying, Honorable, do not allow, do not allow another adjournment. The evidence has been completed as they said; let them tell us whether it is sufficient. If yes, file the information in the High Court.
If the evidence is not complete and they have not requested to continue with the investigation, then enter a Nolle Prosequi immediately. Honorable, it is in the public interest — I believe the public interest referred to in Article 59(b)(iv). The public interest demands that if there is no case, a Nolle Prosequi must be entered. The public interest demands this — to do justice. Doing justice demands that they should enter an immediate Nolle prosequi, and prevention of the abuse of the court process demands the same.
The powers that the DPP and his lawyers have, require that this case should be brought to an end today if they have no evidence. Honorable, this is an election year, with the general election in October. The accused, your accused, is in prison for almost 90 days. He is a leader of the main opposition party in an election year. The Political Parties Act states that even the Registrar of Political Parties, with all his authority to suspend or deregister a party, cannot do so in an election year — in an election year, he cannot do such a thing. Let me tell you what the law says
Now Honorable, what even the Registrar cannot do — even if there are reasons — is exactly what they are trying to do by keeping me in custody over a case that has no, absolutely no, evidence. I want to give you that provision, Honorable: it is Section 19, subsection 3 of the Political Parties Act. It states: ‘Notwithstanding the powers of the Registrar to cancel the registration of a political party, the Registrar shall not cancel the registration of a political party if the period during which the general elections would be held does not exceed 12 months.’
They cannot. Even if the Registrar has reasons, he has no authority to prevent us from participating in the general election. The government prosecutor wants to block us by filing a case without evidence, so that I remain in remand at Ukonga Central Prison while the general election campaigns continue. That is a classic abuse of the process. Do not allow it, Honorable. Do not allow it. And the way not to allow it is to tell them: if you have evidence, file information in the High Court; if you do not have sufficient evidence, enter an immediate Nolle Prosequi. That is all from me, Honorable.
(Updates to this thread are underway)
