Dar es Salaam – The High Court treason trial of opposition leader Tundu Lissu continued its pattern of devastating cross-examinations on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, as a senior police officer investigating the case admitted he had no legal basis for arresting the accused youths, drawing sharp questioning from the self-representing defendant.

Assistant Superintendent of Police Geofrey Aggrey Lutufye, a 47-year-old officer with 15 years of investigation experience, testified that on April 3, 2025, he and his team arrested two youths at a place called Mromboo in Arusha after receiving intelligence that they were “planning to disrupt the 2025 election.” 

However, under Mr Lissu’s cross-examination, the officer could not identify any law that made such planning a crime.

ASP Lutufye testified that he received a radio call from his deputy commander with intelligence about young people planning to disrupt the election. Upon arrival at Mromboo, he found youths discussing the election and arrested two of them, identified as P4 and P7.

Tundu Lissu: Do you know there’s no crime of disrupting the election? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: It’s a crime.

Tundu Lissu: Under what law? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: I don’t remember.

Tundu Lissu: Where did you get that crime when the election law doesn’t recognise it? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: I know it’s a crime, but I don’t know the law.

When Lissu pressed further, asking whether the officer had simply accepted the characterisation from his superiors, the witness remained silent.

READ MORE: Lissu Continues Courtroom Demolition of Prosecution Witnesses; Laughter Erupts as Testimony Unravels

Tundu Lissu: Because [Director for Criminal Investigations Ramadhan] Kingai and [Inspector General of Police Camillus] Wambura say it’s a crime, so it’s a crime? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: [Silent]

The officer also admitted that the youths he arrested were never taken to court and that their cases simply ended. Lissu pointed out the troubling pattern:

Tundu Lissu: Will it surprise you that those you arrested, after your case ended, are now witnesses in this case? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: It doesn’t surprise me.

Tundu Lissu: It doesn’t surprise you because that’s your procedure as police in Tanzania.

Violations 

Lissu also challenged the officer’s statement-writing procedures. The witness had written his own statement without a witness or warning, contrary to Police General Orders (PGO) procedures. When Lissu asked which PGO section allowed this, the officer could not answer.

Tundu Lissu: According to PGO 236, is it correct that the person who writes the witness statement is different from the person being written about? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: You can write it yourself.

Tundu Lissu: What PGO? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: I don’t remember.

Lissu then provided the officer with the PGO to review:

Tundu Lissu: Now show me which PGO says you can write it yourself. 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: I don’t remember.

Tundu Lissu: Do you remember, or don’t you know? 

ASP Geofrey Lutufye: I don’t know.

The officer’s statement was admitted as Exhibit D8 (Defence Exhibit No. 8).

Contradictions

The second witness of the day, a 29-year-old Bajaji driver from Arusha testifying as ‘P4,’ claimed he had seen Lissu on YouTube and been inspired to support the plan to disrupt the election. However, his police statement from April 17, 2025, contradicted much of his court testimony.

READ MORE: Laughter in Court as Lissu Dismantles Witnesses in Treason Trial

When Lissu asked the witness to show where in his police statement he had mentioned browsing his phone, the witness could not.

Tundu Lissu: You said you were browsing your phone in the afternoon. Tell me in your statement, are those words there? 

Witness P4: [Silent, then answers] It’s not there.

Tundu Lissu: Also, today you said when I was giving a speech at the meeting, I said we will kinukisha. Show me where that’s in your statement? 

Witness P4: It’s not there at all.

The witness also admitted that critical details from his testimony—including being questioned and detained, his sister and brother coming to bail him out, and his knowledge of Lissu as a politician—were absent from his police statement.

READ MORE: Chaos in Court as Lissu Denied Food; Judge Intervenes in Dramatic Treason Trial Hearing

When Lissu asked about the meaning of kinukisha, the witness gave an explanation that Lissu challenged:

Tundu Lissu: You’ve said a lot about the word kinukisha. Do you know the meaning of the word kunuka? 

Witness P4: Something that gives a bad smell.

Tundu Lissu: Do you know the meaning of kunukia? 

Witness P4: Giving a good smell.

Tundu Lissu: If a person says they will kinukisha, could they mean they will make a bad smell? 

Witness P4: It depends on what meaning?

Tundu Lissu: And kunukia nicely could also be kinukisha? 

Witness P4: That’s street language.

Tundu Lissu: What street? I live in the street, and we don’t have that language.

When Lissu asked about the 2024 local elections, the witness confirmed that CCM had won 100 per cent and that CHADEMA candidates had been excluded from running.

Tundu Lissu: Do you know that in the 2024 local elections, CCM won 100 per cent and opposition candidates were all eliminated? 

Witness P4: Yes, CCM won.

Tundu Lissu: What happened to the CHADEMA candidates? 

Witness P4: They were not in the election.

The witness’s statement was admitted as Exhibit D9 (Defence Exhibit No. 9).

Drama

The day featured several dramatic moments. When ASP Lutufye left the witness stand, he was still holding the microphone. Judge Ndunguru reminded him: “You’re forgetting your water there.” The officer replied: “No, I don’t want it anymore.” He returned the microphone and left, shaking his head, with the courtroom busting in laughter.

READ MORE: Court Hands Tundu Lissu Partial Victory in Secret Witness Battle, Trial to Proceed

During the lunch break, when the prosecution team was delayed in returning, Lissu joked to the court: “The Republic has run away.”

By the end of Tuesday’s proceedings, the defence had submitted three more exhibits (D8 and D9), bringing the total to nine defence exhibits. The prosecution, meanwhile, still had zero exhibits accepted by the court. 

The case was adjourned until Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 9:00 AM, with the prosecution expected to call witness P7.

The pattern that has emerged throughout the trial is striking: prosecution witnesses consistently admit that critical details from their court testimony are absent from their police statements, and the legal basis for the arrests and charges remains unclear. 

The prosecution’s case continues to crumble under the rigorous questioning of the self-representing defendant.