The Chanzo is hosting Digital Freedom and Innovation Day on April 20, 2024. Register Here

Treason Trial Gripped by Legal Fireworks as Lissu Challenges Evidence Admissibility

If the court upholds any one of Lissu’s objections, the prosecution could be left with a case that is, in the words of the accused, “like a cart before a horse,” going nowhere.

subscribe to our newsletter!

Dar es Salaam – The treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu exploded into a high-stakes legal battle on Friday, as the prosecution attempted to formally submit its key video evidence, only to be met with a formidable, multi-pronged objection from the accused that left the state’s case teetering.

The day culminated in a dramatic adjournment, granting prosecutors a weekend to prepare a response to what legal observers are describing as a “devastating” challenge to the very foundation of their evidence.

The day began with the continuation of testimony from the third prosecution witness, Samwel Elibariki Kaaya, a Police Inspector and digital forensics expert. For hours, led by State Attorney Thawabu Issa, the witness delivered a painstakingly detailed, and at times convoluted, account of his analysis.

He described a multi-layered forensic process applied to a flash disk and a memory card, which he said contained videos of a Tundu Lissu speech titled Uso kwa Uso na Watia Nia Majimboni; No Reforms, No Election Njia Panda.

Key testimony

His testimony was a deep dive into forensic jargon, meticulously outlining a three-stage process. It began with a Preliminary Examination, where he identified the video files on the storage devices and noted the initial hurdle of encountering password protections, which required him to contact the investigating officer for access. 

Once inside, he moved to the Scientific Analysis phase, using specialised software like “Amped Authenticate” to extract the video’s “metadata”—the digital fingerprint hidden within the file. This data, he testified, was crucial as it revealed the video was not an original recording but had been downloaded from a specific YouTube channel named “Jambo TV.” 

READ MORE: Lissu’s Treason Trial Shifts to Technical Evidence as Third Police Witness Takes Stand

Finally, he described conducting a series of Advanced Checks to rule out manipulation; this included a “Clone Analysis” to check for modern forgeries known as “deep fakes,” a “Noise Analysis” to examine the consistency of the video’s pixels, and a “Sensory Pattern Analysis” which he claimed could identify the specific camera model, a Sony HXR-NX100, used for the original recording.

Throughout this testimony, Mr Lissu interjected with light-hearted critiques, at one point mocking the witness’s mispronunciation of English technical terms, quipping, “Kingereza cha wapi hicho? (What kind of English is that?). He suggested that an obsession with complex English terminology was a “disease” plaguing the police force.

After the witness concluded his analysis, the prosecution moved to the crucial step of tendering the flash disk and memory card as exhibits. State Attorney Issa asked the witness to identify the physical items, which he did, and then requested the court to formally admit them as evidence.

Lissu’s objections

It was at this moment that Tundu Lissu, a lawyer by profession, rose to object, launching a methodical and devastating counter-attack.

In a commanding address to the three-judge bench, Tundu Lissu launched a methodical and devastating counter-attack, laying out a series of interconnected legal grounds for why the evidence should be thrown out. He argued that the prosecution’s attempt to introduce the flash disk and memory card was fundamentally flawed from its very foundation.

READ MORE: Lissu Accuses State of Being ‘Worse than Colonialism’ as Tanzania Deports German, US Observers

Lissu first anchored his objection in a critical procedural failure, pointing out that the videos were never presented or shown in the lower ‘Committal Court.’ He insisted that this was a legal prerequisite, a gateway that must be passed for evidence to be admissible in a High Court trial. 

Citing binding Court of Appeal rulings, he painted a vivid picture of the prosecution’s error, stating, “What was not done in the committal court cannot be introduced now. That is like putting the cart before the horse and expecting it to be pulled forward.”

Building on this, he contended that the evidence was being presented “prematurely.” Lissu drew a sharp distinction between the physical exhibits and the expert report that authenticated them. 

He reasoned that the witness’s forensic report on the videos should be submitted and accepted by the court first, as it is the key that unlocks the door for the exhibits themselves. “You don’t apply oil before you bathe,” he analogised, suggesting the prosecution had the sequence entirely backwards. If the report validating the evidence is not accepted, he argued, then the exhibits it describes cannot logically be admitted.

In what may be the most damaging charge, Lissu challenged the witness’s legal authority to even present such evidence. He referred to Government Notices (GN) No. 799 of 2020 and No. 745 of 2022, which officially appoint experts. Lissu pointed out that in these gazettes, Samwel Kaaya is listed as an expert in “photographic print and enlargement” (still pictures), not in video or cyber forensics.

READ MORE: Lissu Exposes Police Witness’s Contradictions, Grills Credibility in Tense Treason Trial

Furthermore, he highlighted a fatal flaw: one of the appointment notices was signed by the Attorney General (AG), not the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Lissu argued that the AG has no legal authority in criminal matters, rendering the appointment invalid. “The AG and DPP are two different constitutional offices with different laws,” he declared. “This is a fatal error.”

Finally, Lissu argued that the prosecution failed to establish a clear, documented “chain of custody” for the evidence from the moment it was seized until it reached the court.

Citing the precedent of Paulo Maduka vs. Republic, he stated that for such sensitive evidence, the prosecution must prove it was not tampered with at any point. He noted that none of the previous witnesses had produced the necessary handover forms (like PF45), creating a critical break in the chain.

Prosecution stunned

The objection left the prosecution team reeling. In a move that underscored the gravity of Lissu’s arguments, Senior State Attorney Renatus Mkude requested a two-hour adjournment to prepare a response.

READ MORE: ​​Tundu Lissu Turns Tables, Grills Police Witness on Treason Law and Political History

The judges, however, saw through the request. Presiding Judge Jaji Ndunguru clarified, “So, listening to you, State Attorney, when you mentioned two hours, you essentially meant you are seeking an adjournment until Monday.” 

The courtroom erupted in laughter at the translation of the legal manoeuvring. The court granted the prosecution the weekend to regroup, adjourning the case until Monday, October 20, 2025, at 9:00 AM.

The trial now hangs in the balance. The state’s entire case is built upon this video evidence. If the court upholds any one of Lissu’s objections, the prosecution could be left with a case that is, in the words of the accused, “like a cart before a horse,” going nowhere. 

Monday’s session, therefore, will be a decisive test of the prosecution’s ability to defend its evidence against a legally formidable opponent.

Journalism in its raw form.

The Chanzo is supported by readers like you.

Support The Chanzo and get access to our amazing features.
Digital Freedom and Innovation Day
The Chanzo is hosting Digital Freedom and Innovation Day on Saturday April 20, 2024 at Makumbusho ya Taifa.

Register to secure your spot

Did you enjoy this article? Consider supporting us

The Chanzo is supported by readers like you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

×