Dar es Salaam – The treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu entered a dramatic new phase on Tuesday as the opposition leader, representing himself, launched a fierce and detailed cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, systematically challenging the integrity of the police investigation and the very foundation of the charges against him.
The session was marked by tense exchanges, as Mr Lissu questioned Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) George Wilbard Bagyemu for hours, exposing inconsistencies between his court testimony and his initial police statements, and accusing the investigation of being a “fishing expedition” designed to entrap him.
Before the cross-examination began, Mr Lissu raised a fresh complaint with the court, revealing that his brother, Dr Stephen Linco, who had travelled from Germany to attend the proceedings, had been barred from entering the courtroom by immigration officials.
“How does the Immigration Department prevent someone from entering a courtroom?” Lissu asked the judges. “A guest who has entered the country with a visa cannot be barred from entering a courtroom. What is their business preventing people from coming to court?”
The bench acknowledged the complaint and stated they would follow up with the court registrar.
READ MORE: Chaos and Legal Wrangling Mark Tundu Lissu Treason Trial Resumption
Mr Lissu then began his cross-examination of ASP Bagyemu, the Deputy Zone Criminal Officer who led the initial investigation. The questioning quickly became a masterclass in legal scrutiny, focusing on several key areas.
Lissu first forced the witness to admit that he had filed two sworn statements, not one. He then contrasted Bagyemu’s lengthy court testimony about his educational background—where he revealed multiple diplomas and master’s degrees—with his initial statement, which only mentioned police training:
Lissu: “In your witness statement, is there anything related to the other colleges you mentioned yesterday?”
Bagyemu: “No, there isn’t. I didn’t mention them because I wasn’t asked.”
Lissu: “You didn’t mention the master’s degrees either?”
Bagyemu: “No, I didn’t, because I wasn’t asked, but today you have asked me, which is why I have mentioned them.”
It appears that Lissu led this line of questioning to paint the witness as someone embellishing his credentials and whose testimony was expanding beyond his original, sworn account.
READ MORE: Setback for CHADEMA Leader Tundu Lissu as Court Greenlights Treason Trial
Lissu meticulously dissected the elements of the treason charge under Section 39 of the Penal Code. He read aloud the specific statements attributed to him in the charge sheet—such as “We will go to incite rebellion” and “We will disrupt the election”—and forced Bagyemu to admit that these exact words were not contained in the witness’s initial investigation statement:
Lissu: “My question is, are these I have read contained in the charge sheet?”
Bagyemu: “What you have read is not there.”
This highlighted a potential gap between the formal charges and the evidence first gathered by the investigating officer.A central pillar of Lissu’s defence was challenging the claim that he “published” the controversial video. He grilled Bagyemu on the evidence provided by ‘P’, a Jambo TV employee, who stated that it was the media outlet itself that recorded and uploaded the content to YouTube:
Lissu: “According to your own evidence, the one who uploaded those words is P?”
Bagyemu: “No, the one who uploaded is you, Lissu, and P.”
Lissu: “If I published it with P, why hasn’t P been charged?”
When presented with ‘P’s statement, which indicated that CHADEMA members had asked journalists to step out for a private discussion, Bagyemu was forced to admit that the statement did not specifically name Lissu as the person who gave the order.
Lissu concluded this point by stating, “You are used to framing people with false cases, but we will get there.”
Lissu questioned the witness’s competence and the investigation’s motive, revealing that in his 22-year career, Bagyemu had investigated several similar cases against political figures, including CHADEMA deputy chairperson John Heche, but none had ever resulted in a conviction:
Lissu: “In your 22 years in the police force, have you ever investigated any case of this nature where the accused was found guilty?”
Bagyemu: “It is true, there is no one who was ever found guilty.”
Lissu: “Is there any that reached a conclusion where the court issued a judgement?”
Bagyemu: “None reached the stage of judgement.”
This, it seems, was used to suggest a pattern of politically motivated investigations that fail to meet the legal burden of proof.
The cross-examination took an unexpected turn when Lissu questioned Bagyemu about his own past statement that Lissu had “violated his JKT oath.” The witness, who had never served in the National Service (JKT), claimed detailed knowledge of Lissu’s service number and training camps from 1989.
Lissu used this to question the witness’s credibility and the relevance of such information.
READ MORE: Tanzanian Court to Rule on Jurisdiction in Tundu Lissu Treason Trial on Sept. 15
After a full day of intense questioning, the prosecution requested an adjournment, citing logistical issues for prison officials due to poor roads. The judges, keen to avoid delays that could see the court invoke its powers to proceed without the accused, agreed.
Mr Lissu, noting he would need “another two or three days” with the witness, did not object. The case was adjourned until Wednesday, October 8, 2025, at 9:00 AM, when the cross-examination of ASP Bagyemu is set to continue.
