Dar es Salaam – The treason trial of Tundu Lissu was dominated by a fierce legal battle on Monday, February 23, 2026, as the opposition leader clashed with state prosecutors over their attempt to introduce new evidence related to events that occurred while he was already in prison.
Mr Lissu, representing himself, argued that the prosecution’s “notice of additional evidence” was an illegal manoeuvre designed to change the nature of the charges against him. He warned the three-judge panel that if they allowed the evidence, he was prepared to delve into the state-sponsored violence of October 2025.
The dispute began when State Attorney Nassoro Katuga announced the prosecution had filed a notice to add evidence for an existing witness, ACP Amin Mahamba, the lead investigator.
Mr Katuga argued that Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) allowed for this, as the new evidence—related to the events of October 29, 2025—was only discovered on February 16, 2026, while preparing the witness.
The section in question requires prosecution to notify the accused in writing before calling an undisclosed witness, with the notice including the witness’s details and evidence summary, unless the witness is discovered on the trial day.
READ MORE: Judges Reject Prosecution Bid to Silence Court Reporting; Lissu Pushes to Discredit More Witnesses
Mr Lissu immediately rose to object, arguing that the prosecution was misinterpreting the law.
Tundu Lissu: Section 308 of the CPA is about a new witness. It says a witness whose statement or evidence was not read during the committal proceedings. The law is about an additional witness, not additional evidence for a witness whose statement is already before the court. ACP Amin Mahamba is already a listed witness. His statement is in the committal record. This is not a notice of an additional witness; it is a notice of additional evidence, which does not exist in law.
He accused the prosecution of attempting to fundamentally alter the case against him, which is based on events from April 2025.
Tundu Lissu: They are bringing evidence of a person who investigated the events of the 2025 general election. The events of October 29, I was already in prison! They think this will help them because they want to change the charge by bringing in matters of October 29, 2025. They cannot amend the information through the back door.
‘Pandora’s Box’
In a powerful and defiant address to the court, Mr Lissu warned of the consequences of allowing the new evidence, stating he was ready to confront the issue of state violence head-on.
READ MORE:Lissu Shows Compassion as Prosecution Struggles; Another Witness Crumbles Under Cross-Examination
Tundu Lissu: If this notice is left to be part of the court record, it will open a Pandora’s box that contains every kind of evil that I don’t think this court can handle. If you open that door, we will go there. We will talk about the mass killings, and we will ask each other who killed Tanzanians. This thing has no merit. Are they ready? I am ready. If it is allowed, I am ready. Please, judges, I ask that we do not go there.
The exchange between Mr Lissu and Mr Katuga became heated, with the lead judge, Dunstan Ndunguru, at one point telling them to stop their “vijembe” (barbs).
After Mr Lissu’s forceful argument, courtroom observers noted that Mr Katuga appeared shaken. When he rose to reply, he seemed uncertain, asking the court, “What should I do, reply or rejoinder?”
Mr Katuga argued that Section 308 was a “guardian” for the accused, meant to ensure they are aware of all evidence. He cited the case of Remina Omary Abdul vs Republic, arguing the Court of Appeal had allowed for additional evidence.
Mr Lissu countered that the Remina case was about committal proceedings and did not apply. He reiterated his main point: the law allows for new witnesses, not new evidence for old witnesses.
READ MORE: ‘I Know It’s a Crime, But I Don’t Know the Law’: Police Witness Crumples in Lissu Treason Trial
Tundu Lissu: The door for Amin Mahamba was closed at the committal. If they want, they should find another witness, not Amin Mahamba… My objection will protect the integrity of this case. I’m only trying to help them. They think there is a deal here; there is no deal.
The judges deliberated for over ten minutes before Judge Ndunguru announced they would deliver a ruling on the objection on Tuesday morning before proceeding with other witnesses.
The trial continues.
