Dar es Salaam – The High Court treason trial of opposition leader Tundu Lissu took an unusual turn on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, when the self-representing defendant displayed unexpected compassion toward the prosecution, even as he continued his methodical destruction of their case through cross-examination.
The day began with the prosecution announcing that only one witness was available, as another had been unable to attend due to a death in his family—his father-in-law had passed away. When Renatus Mkude requested an adjournment to allow the lawyers to comfort their colleague, Lissu responded with surprising grace.
Tundu Lissu: If someone has experienced a loss, it’s clear they can’t come. I’m not the kind of person to forbid people from going to a funeral. I say this not because I don’t want people to go to funerals, but because I want us to use our time well so that those who are not going to funerals can stay with us to conduct the case.
Judge Ndunguru then asked Lissu directly: “What do you say, accused?”
Lissu replied: “I have never been so hard-hearted as to forbid people from going to a funeral, if they have seen the importance of going.”
The judge granted the adjournment, allowing the lawyers to attend to their personal matters.
READ MORE: ‘I Know It’s a Crime, But I Don’t Know the Law’: Police Witness Crumples in Lissu Treason Trial
When the trial resumed with the single available witness—a 26-year-old Bajaji driver testifying as ‘P7’—Lissu began his cross-examination with a personal touch.
Noting that the witness was from Kiranyi, a neighbourhood in Arusha where Lissu had previously worked with a lawyer named Mr Disouza, Lissu established a human connection before challenging the witness’s account.
Tundu Lissu: Are you hailing from Kiranyi?
Witness P7: Yes.
Tundu Lissu: Do you pass by Sakina’s place when you go to Mr Disouza, the lawyer?
Witness P7: [Silent]
Tundu Lissu: Can you hear me, witness?
Witness P7: I can’t know all the people.
Tundu Lissu: But you pass by Sakina’s place there?
Witness P7: Yes.
Tundu Lissu: Now I won’t follow you there, but when I saw Kiranyi, I remembered that I worked with Mr Disouza there. Do you know that?
Witness P7: Okay.
Tundu Lissu: I have no problem with you, and you know that? I don’t hit people.
Witness P7: Even I wasn’t afraid.
Tundu Lissu: Why are you hiding there in that box if you’re not afraid of me?
Witness P7: That’s how it is now.
The missing details
The witness testified that on April 3, 2025, at Mromboo in Arusha, he and others were having an ordinary conversation when a colleague mentioned that CHADEMA had said they would stop the election and would “kinukisha badly.”
READ MORE: Lissu Continues Courtroom Demolition of Prosecution Witnesses; Laughter Erupts as Testimony Unravels
He also testified that his colleague said police steal votes, that judges are puppets of CCM, and that the election commission had been instructed to eliminate CHADEMA members.
However, when Lissu had the witness’s April 17 police statement admitted as Exhibit D10 and systematically compared it to the testimony, the witness admitted that numerous critical details were absent from the written statement.
Tundu Lissu: You explained to the court that at the village, there were many people, including Bajaji drivers and shop owners selling household items?
Witness P7: It’s true.
Tundu Lissu: Now show me in that exhibit where those words are?
Witness P7: They’re not there.
Tundu Lissu: On April 3, you were having ordinary conversations, and one person started talking about CHADEMA stopping the election.
Witness P7: Yes.
Tundu Lissu: Now show me where that’s in the exhibit?
Witness P7: Here it says he started it, but the person, I mean…
Tundu Lissu: Are the words there or not?
Witness P7: They’re not there.
READ MORE: Laughter in Court as Lissu Dismantles Witnesses in Treason Trial
When Lissu asked about the allegations against judges and police, the witness again admitted they were not in his statement:
Tundu Lissu: Tell the judges if those words about judges are in your statement?
Witness P7: They’re not there.
Tundu Lissu: Did you mention the police in your statement about them stealing votes?
Witness P7: They’re not there.
Tundu Lissu: Did you mention the election commission even once in your statement?
Witness P7: I didn’t mention it.
Tundu Lissu: Did you mention the 2024 election even once in your statement?
Witness P7: No.
When the witness offered the explanation that he was “writing a statement, not a book,” Lissu pressed further:
Tundu Lissu: You said while we were continuing with the argument, I got inspired. Now, those words about getting inspired—are they in your police statement?
Witness P7: They’re not there.
Smartphone contradiction
Lissu also questioned the witness about accessing YouTube through a smartphone—a detail the witness mentioned in court but not in his police statement:
Tundu Lissu: You said you accessed YouTube using a smartphone. Where is that in your statement?
Witness P7: I accessed YouTube because it means I had a phone.
Tundu Lissu: Could you access it using a computer?
Witness P7: I don’t have a computer.
Tundu Lissu: Now answer my question—you said you accessed using a phone. Did you mention that?
Witness P7: I didn’t mention it.
Pseudonym paradox
READ MORE: Chaos in Court as Lissu Denied Food; Judge Intervenes in Dramatic Treason Trial Hearing
One of the most striking exchanges came when Lissu questioned why the witness had been given a pseudonym (P7) for his safety, when the witness had earlier claimed no one had threatened him:
Tundu Lissu: Why were you given the name P7?
Witness P7: Because of my safety.
Tundu Lissu: But didn’t you say no one threatened you?
Witness P7: Yes, that’s how it is now.
The prosecution declined to ask any re-examination questions. With only one witness available for the day, the case was adjourned until Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 9:00 AM.
By the end of Wednesday’s proceedings, the defence had submitted one more exhibit (D10), bringing the total to ten defence exhibits. The prosecution, meanwhile, still had zero exhibits accepted by the court.
