Dar es Salaam – In a stunning blow to the state’s case, the High Court on Wednesday blocked the prosecution from submitting its central video evidence in the treason trial of CHADEMA national chairperson Tundu Lissu, ruling that the digital exhibits were presented by an unqualified witness.
The proceedings were preceded by a significant political development just minutes before the judges entered. John Heche, the Deputy Chairperson of CHADEMA for Tanzania Mainland, was apprehended by police outside the courthouse and taken to Mara region, the party said.
The arrest of such a high-ranking opposition leader, occurring at the very doors of the court, sent a wave of tension through the gathered crowd and underscored the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the trial.
Inside the courtroom, the drama continued. Before the session could formally begin, a man stood up and declared himself a prophet sent by God. He pleaded with the judges to hear him, stating that he had been divinely instructed to demand Tundu Lissu’s freedom. “I am a prophet, sent by God, free him, he is a man of God,” he proclaimed. The man, identified himself as Prophet Mshauri (counselor), told CHADEMA members that he had fasted and God had shown him that Lissu would emerge victorious today. He explained that since yesterday, he had tried to engage the court leadership unsuccessful.
As prison guards moved to detain him, he grew increasingly agitated, raising his voice and crying out, “Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!” in a fervent appeal before being physically carried out of the courtroom by the guards, his shouts echoing down the halls.
Long-awaited ruling
Once the order was restored, the three-judge bench, led by Judge Ndunguru, delivered its long-awaited ruling. The court focused on what it deemed the most critical question: the competence of the third prosecution witness, Inspector Samwel Elibariki Kaaya.
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu’s Treason Trial Hangs in the Balance as Judges Set to Rule on Critical Evidence
The judges upheld Lissu’s argument that the inspector, while legally gazetted as an expert in ‘photographic prints and enlargements’ (still pictures), was not appointed or qualified to analyse or tender video evidence.
The court drew a clear legal distinction between the two, noting that the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) section 216, under which Kaaya was appointed, deals with photographs and does not mention video.
“The two things have different meanings, and the Republic has failed to differentiate them,” the court stated. “This witness does not have the power to tender these videos. Cyber forensic experts are the ones who should have come to tender these videos.”
The decision to reject the flash disk and memory card—the very exhibits the entire forensic testimony was meant to authenticate—strikes at the heart of the treason charge, which is predicated on the content of those videos.
Hasty pivot
Undeterred, the prosecution immediately attempted to pivot. State Attorney Thawabu Issa called Inspector Kaaya back to the stand and asked him to tender his 11-page forensic report as a separate exhibit.
READ MORE: Treason Trial Gripped by Legal Fireworks as Lissu Challenges Evidence Admissibility
This move was instantly opposed by Mr Lissu, who argued that the report was intrinsically “contaminated” by the same fatal flaw. “The ink is not yet dry,” Lissu quipped, pointing out that the report was prepared by the same witness just deemed incompetent to handle the video evidence it analysed.
He argued that the report, which detailed the examination of the now-rejected flash disk and memory card, could not “stand on its own” and was therefore inadmissible. He further noted that the document was labelled a ‘report’ and not the ‘Certificate’ specified in the CPA.
The prosecution, now represented by State Attorney Job Mrema, pleaded with the court to separate the report from the physical exhibits and admit it, insisting its content was relevant. However, their arguments appeared strained, with observers noting a palpable sense of disarray within the state’s legal team.
After hearing rejoinders from both sides, the judges adjourned to consider this new, critical objection. The court announced it would deliver its ruling on the admissibility of the forensic report on Thursday, October 23, 2025, at 9:00 AM.
The trial now hangs by a thread. If the court also rejects the forensic report, the state will be left with no physical evidence and no expert testimony to support the core of its treason case, potentially leading to a collapse of the prosecution.
The upcoming ruling promises to be the most decisive moment in the trial to date.
