Dar es Salaam – The treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu exploded into a dramatic confrontation on Friday as the accused subjected the state’s key police witness to a gruelling cross-examination, exposing significant gaps in the officer’s knowledge of Tanzania’s political and constitutional history.
What was anticipated as a technical cross-examination quickly transformed into a sweeping historical lecture, with Mr Lissu, representing himself, using his questioning to build a political defence, arguing that his controversial speech was part of a decades-long, legitimate struggle for constitutional reform.
From the outset, Mr Lissu established a firm and at times mocking tone. He instructed Inspector John Kaaya to answer questions with a simple “Yes” or “No,” warning that failure to do so could prolong the case for weeks. The witness often seemed out of his depth.
The cross-examination began with Lissu establishing that Kaaya had indeed testified that the speech on April 3, 2025, was intended to “intimidate the government.” Lissu then pivoted sharply, launching into a series of questions designed to contextualise his actions within a long history of legal and political activism.
For nearly the entire session, Lissu led Inspector Kaaya on a whirlwind tour of Tanzania’s constitutional reform efforts since 1991, asking if he was aware of:
- The Nyalali Commission (1991).
- The Kisanga Commission (1998).
- The Bomani Commission (2003).
- The Warioba Commission (2011-2014) and the subsequent Constituent Assembly, which Lissu himself attended.
- The East African Court of Justice’s 2022 ruling demanded that Tanzania change laws against independent candidates.
- The recent Maridhiano talks between CCM and CHADEMA, which collapsed in May 2023.
READ MORE: Prosecution’s Cyber Expert Takes Stand as Lissu Treason Trial Enters Technical Phase
To virtually every question, Inspector Kaaya repeatedly answered Sifahamu (I don’t know), Sikumbuki (I don’t remember), or Sijui (I don’t know). The responses drew frequent laughter from the gallery, turning the tense atmosphere at times into one of ridicule.
Lissu: “You know that in 2011, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ordered Tanzania to remove clauses prohibiting independent candidates?”
Kaaya: “I don’t know that.”
Lissu: “Have you ever read President Mwinyi’s book, Mzee Rukhsa?”
Kaaya: “I’ve heard of it.”
Lissu: “Have you read it?”
Kaaya: “No, I haven’t read it.”
Lissu: “So how do you know it’s not true that CCM rejected the Founder of the Nation’s recommendations?” (in reference to an independent candidate).
Kaaya: “It’s true I haven’t read it, so you are asking me about things I don’t know.”
After establishing what the witness did not know, Lissu shifted to challenging what the witness did say. He informed the court that he had identified over “40 points of contradiction” between Inspector Kaaya’s oral testimony in court and his initial written police statement.
He began reading them aloud, covering details from the officer’s training at the Zanzibar police college to his courses on evidence law and community policing. The exercise of merely listing these areas of discrepancy took nearly half an hour, signalling that a lengthy and detailed challenge to the witness’s credibility was yet to come.
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Turns Tables, Grills Police Witness on Treason Law and Political History
When Lissu moved to have the witness’s written statement formally admitted into evidence to highlight these contradictions, the prosecution objected. They argued that the proper procedure had not been followed.
Lissu fired back, accusing the state attorneys of causing unnecessary delays and noting they had used the same procedure when presenting the documents to him.
After a short recess for the three-judge panel to deliberate, the court announced its decision. The judges required more time to write a ruling on the admissibility of the statement. Consequently, the session was adjourned.
The trial will now resume on Monday, October 13, 2025, at 9:00 AM, where the court will first deliver its ruling, determining the next phase of this high-stakes legal battle.
