Dar es Salaam. The High Court on Monday ordered protective measures for witnesses in the treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu, approving a petition filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Under the court-ordered protection measures, civilian witnesses will now testify under full anonymity – with neither physical courtroom appearances nor public disclosure of their identities permitted during proceedings.
The ruling also imposes a media blackout. News outlets are prohibited from publishing, broadcasting, or disseminating any information about these protected witnesses without official authorisation.
The decision follows closely on the July 11, 2025 gazettement of the Witness Protection Rules, legislation that opposition-aligned legal analysts characterise as a strategic legal framework tailored specifically to Mr Lissu’s high-profile case.
Lissu’s treason charges are currently undergoing committal proceedings in a magistrate’s court. This crucial pretrial phase determines whether evidentiary thresholds are met to refer the case to the High Court for full trial – the exact procedural stage where the new witness protection rules may prove most consequential.
Why hiding witnesses?
“In this era of advanced technology, how can you possibly conduct a capital punishment case while hiding witnesses? This is a major trial – you can’t sentence someone to death in secrecy,” John Heche, CHADEMA’s deputy chairperson (Tanzania Mainland), reacted to the court decision on X.
READ MORE: Treason Case Against CHADEMA Chairman Tundu Lissu Adjourned Again
“If testimony is given from behind screens using computers, phones, or even AI-generated voices – who will truly witness it? How can we verify the truth?” Heche added.
But proponents of the rules argue they are a necessary and long-overdue reform to protect citizens who risk their lives to uphold justice. They maintain that the regulations are designed to apply to all serious criminal cases, such as those involving organised crime, terrorism, and human trafficking, where witness intimidation is rampant.
However, in the politically polarised climate of Tanzania, such assurances are being met with deep skepticism. At least among his followers, the Lissu case is not seen as an ordinary criminal matter but as a continuation of the state’s efforts to silence a vocal and formidable critic.
A key concern with the rules is the potential for the protection orders themselves to be challenged as infringing on the accused’s right to a fair trial, particularly the right to confront their accuser.
The rules attempt to balance this by placing the final decision in the hands of the court, which must consider the interests of justice, the severity of the offense, and any alternative measures available.
READ MORE: Tanzania Denies Claims of Plan to Poison Opposition Leader Tundu Lissu in Prison
Rule 8, for example, which allows for the modification or revocation of a protection order based on “changed circumstances,” provides a necessary flexibility. However, it also opens a potential avenue for legal challenges that could delay proceedings.
Problematic rules
Several other provisions within the new rules are also being highlighted as particularly problematic in the context of the Lissu case, including Rule 4, which allows the DPP to seek a protection order before formal charges are even filed in the High Court, fitting perfectly into the current committal stage.
Rule 6 grants the court the power to use pseudonyms, redact identifying information, and use voice or image-distorting technology. This could mean the defense may not know the identity or see the face of key accusers.
Rule 9 gives the court the authority to hold proceedings in private, away from public and media scrutiny, which critics argue is a way to avoid public accountability in a case of immense national interest.
And Rule 10 empowers the presiding judge or magistrate to limit questioning to prevent the disclosure of a protected witness’s identity. This could be used to block legitimate lines of inquiry by the defense aimed at testing a witness’s credibility.
Prosecutorial overreach
Prominent Tanzanian attorney Jebra Kambole, a key member of Lissu’s defense team, has denounced Monday’s court order as a prosecutorial overreach.
He characterised the decision as a transparent attempt to fast-track the politically-charged case against the opposition leader, vowing to mount “vigorous legal resistance” against the measure.
“Lissu has rightly declared he won’t participate in a trial conducted in secrecy with witnesses who can’t withstand cross-examination,” Mr Kambole wrote on X.
“We stand firmly with him – no justice can be served through Star Chamber proceedings,” he added, referring to the secretive English court (1487–1641) known for arbitrary rulings without due process.
“Why must witnesses hide?” Kambole asked. “Is Lissu a threat to them? Isn’t protecting citizens the police’s fundamental duty?”
