Dar es Salaam – The treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu reached a fever pitch on Monday, culminating in a blistering legal duel over the admissibility of the state’s key video evidence.
After hours of intense arguments, the three-judge bench postponed a potentially case-defining ruling, leaving the prosecution’s fate uncertain until Wednesday.
The session was dedicated entirely to the prosecution’s response to Mr Lissu’s multi-faceted objection against the admission of a flash drive and memory card containing videos of his speeches.
The state’s attempt to rebut the challenge was met with a powerful rejoinder from Lissu, who accused the prosecutors of presenting falsehoods and operating outside the law.
Led by State Attorney Nassor Katuga, the prosecution team launched its defence of the evidence. In a direct rebuttal to Lissu’s first objection, Katuga vehemently insisted that the videos were indeed played and read aloud in the Committal Court at Kisutu.
He invited the judges to examine the court’s records, specifically pages 92 and 93 of the proceedings, which he claimed documented this fact.
“Somebody defending themselves can lie, but the court can prove the same through court proceedings,” Katuga stated. He argued that court records are “serious documents” that cannot be easily impeached and asked the judges to dismiss this ground of objection as “baseless.”
READ MORE: Treason Trial Gripped by Legal Fireworks as Lissu Challenges Evidence Admissibility
Regarding Lissu’s other objections, Katuga argued that there was no specific law requiring a forensic report to be submitted before the physical exhibit is analysed. He defended the competence of the witness, Inspector Samwel Kaaya, citing his testimony and a Government Notice (GN No. 745/2022) as proof of his appointment.
On the critical issue of the broken chain of custody, Katuga downplayed its significance at this stage, arguing that such a challenge should only be considered after the prosecution has closed its entire case, not during the tendering of a single exhibit.
Lissu’s rejoinder
In a rejoinder, Tundu Lissu systematically dismantled the state’s arguments, he stood firm on his claim that the videos were never played at Kisutu, stating, “I do not like lies. The truth that the video was not shown at Kisutu will remain so, on this Earth and even in Heaven. I cannot deceive myself, or commit a sin of that nature. I leave that to Katuga; perhaps he is used to sin and lying about things that are not true.”
On the sequence of evidence, Lissu reiterated that the logic of “the cart before the horse” still held, insisting that the forensic report must pave the way for the exhibits it authenticates.
READ MORE: Lissu’s Treason Trial Shifts to Technical Evidence as Third Police Witness Takes Stand
He then delivered his most devastating blow, focusing on the witness’s competence. Lissu presented a new Government Notice (GN No. 823/2024), which he stated officially appoints 27 “Cyber Forensic Experts” for criminal matters.
He pointed out that Inspector Samwel Kaaya’s name was absent from this list, which is sanctioned by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“Their expert is a pocket-picked expert; he is not in the law,” Lissu declared. He argued that while Kaaya may be appointed for “still photographs,” he has no legal authority to analyse or testify about video evidence, which falls squarely under cyber forensics.
“The cyber forensic experts have been appointed, he is not among them,” he concluded, asserting that the witness was legally incompetent to tender the evidence.
Adjournment
Following the arguments, the judges retired for a brief discussion. Presiding judge, Justice Dunstan Ndunguru, then announced that the court’s ruling on the admissibility of the crucial video evidence would be delivered on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, at 9:00 AM.
READ MORE: Lissu Accuses State of Being ‘Worse than Colonialism’ as Tanzania Deports German, US Observers
The decision promises to be a pivotal moment in the trial. If the judges uphold Lissu’s objections, the state could be stripped of its central evidence, dealing a catastrophic blow to the treason case.
If they overrule him, the trial will proceed with the videos formally admitted, setting the stage for a contentious phase of examination. The fate of the case now rests entirely on the judges’ interpretation of complex procedural and evidentiary laws.
