Dar es Salaam — The High Court on Friday allowed Tundu Lissu to re-examine himself after the prosecution finished its cross-examination, rejecting a state argument that a self-represented accused person could not clarify his own answers in the same way that an advocate would re-examine a witness.
The ruling cleared the way for Lissu to clarify several points raised in questioning, including his position that Jambo TV, rather than him, controlled publication of the April 3, 2025 speech on which the treason charge is based.
The court later heard the first defence witness, CHADEMA secretary general John Mnyika, who said journalists attended the first section of the meeting to report the party’s call for constitutional and electoral reforms.
Justice Dunstan Ndunguru, sitting with Justices Karyemaha and Kiwonde, said the court could not bar re-examination. It directed Lissu to confine it to the scope of questions put to him in cross-examination, adding that the prosecution could object if he introduced new matters or sought leave to put further questions.
State Attorney Ajuaye Zengeli told the court that the prosecution had one final question for Lissu, whether intention to commit an offence is proved by an act. Lissu answered: “That is not true.” Zengeli then said the prosecution had completed its cross-examination.
Lissu asked to re-examine himself. Principal State Attorney Nassoro Katuga opposed the request, arguing that re-examination is intended to clarify answers given under cross-examination and that Lissu had elected to conduct his defence without an advocate.
READ MORE: Lissu Tells Treason Court He Has No Faith in Judges on Election Disputes
Katuga asked the court to consider how a witness could question and clarify his or her own evidence. He said the court itself could ask questions if it considered clarification necessary.
Nassoro Katuga: “The right of re-examination belongs to the party that called the witness. He refused representation. How will he ask himself questions and give himself answers?”
Tundu Lissu: “The fact that the witness is also the accused does not take away the right to re-examination. I will return to the questions I was asked, state my answers and provide clarification.”
Lissu said Katuga had not made a formal objection but was instead attempting to advise the court. He argued that the concern about new facts was unfounded because the state could object if new matters were introduced.
After consulting, Justice Ndunguru said the question was one of scope, not whether re-examination was available. “We cannot prevent re-examination,” he said.
Clarifying the defence
Lissu then returned to the last question asked by Zengeli. He said intention is not invariably manifested through an act, arguing that the legal provision in issue recognised publication as a separate mode.
READ MORE: Lissu Cross-examination Opens With Clash Over Speech, Publication and the Limits of Protest
He also clarified his earlier reference to decisions and opinions of international bodies, saying courts ought to consider them as guidance. The prosecution objected when he began to describe their importance, and the judges directed him to move on.
On the burden of proof, Lissu said he had not tendered documentary evidence of awards he cited during his defence because the burden of proving guilt rested with the prosecution, not with him to establish his innocence.
He repeated that peaceful action outside court, including public assembly and demonstrations, is constitutionally recognised. Lissu referred to Article 20(1) of the Constitution and said he regarded the campaign against an election that was not free and fair as part of democratic action.
The court also discussed the wording of the treason provision. Justice Ndunguru noted a difference between the 2022 and 2023 versions cited in court: one used the phrase “liable to death,” while the other stated that a person “shall be sentenced to death.”
Lissu’s further clarifications revisited his argument on evidence. He said that although he knew journalists did not receive his speech in advance, he had no control over what media workers chose to publish. He also maintained that the prosecution’s concealed witnesses were known only to the party that called them.
Tundu Lissu: “The journalists are not given these things beforehand. They decide how to report. I had no control over those people.”
Disputed police statements
Lissu then took the court through Defence Exhibits D1 to D16, the witness statements he had relied upon during cross-examination of the prosecution case.
He said several statements appeared to have been written and certified by the same police officer who purportedly gave the statement, which he argued called the reliability of the process into question.
He identified D1, associated with John Kaaya, D2, associated with Samuel Elibariki, D5, D8 and D11 as examples in which, he said, the sections for the maker and recorder of a statement bore the same person’s signature.
He said D15, ACP Amin Mahamba’s statement, had a signature for the maker but none for the officer who recorded it.
Lissu contrasted those documents with D14, the statement associated with Detective Corporal Amani, which he said had been recorded by another officer, Detective Corporal Robert.
The prosecution objected when Lissu referred again to concealed witnesses as “criminals.” He responded that his point was that people who had allegedly planned crimes, were arrested and admitted the plans, but were then released and became witnesses against him, should be treated with caution.
Lissu concluded his re-examination at that point. The court adjourned briefly before his first defence witness was called.
Mnyika takes the stand
Mnyika, 46, took the oath as Defence Witness Two, DW2. He told the court he had been CHADEMA’s secretary general since 2019 and previously held several senior party positions, including national youth director, director of information and publicity, director of foreign affairs and international relations, deputy secretary general and Kinondoni regional chairperson.
READ MORE: High Court Finds Lissu Has a Case to Answer as He Seeks Summons for President Samia
He also told the bench that he served as an MP for Ubungo from 2010 to 2015 and for Kibamba from 2015 to 2020. As secretary general, he said, he is the party’s chief executive officer, chairperson of its secretariat, overseer of its administration and resources, and the person responsible for implementing decisions of its central committee, governing council and general assembly.
A light moment emerged in the courtroom as Mnyika began describing party structures at a rapid pace. Lissu asked him to slow down because the judges were writing, then advised him to continue only when the judge signalled that he had finished noting the answer.
John Mnyika: “There are two main kinds of party meetings, internal meetings and public meetings.”
Justice Dunstan Ndunguru: “I do not have to say ‘mmh.’ I can say, ‘continue.’”
The courtroom laughed.
Media freedom and the April 3 meeting
The focus then shifted to the April 3, 2025 meeting at CHADEMA’s Mikocheni headquarters. Mnyika said the party invited media organisations to cover the first part of the gathering, in which senior leaders addressed parliamentary and civic aspirants, before the leaders and aspirants held a separate private session.
He said the party gave journalists no instructions to bring cameras, pens, notebooks or other tools. He maintained that CHADEMA respects media freedom and did not direct journalists on whether or how to broadcast the event.
Tundu Lissu: “It has been said that I broadcast the coverage. What is your answer?”
John Mnyika: “CHADEMA believes in media freedom, so we cannot interfere with journalists. They broadcast it themselves, and we were not involved.”
Mnyika said the purpose of inviting journalists was to convey the party’s demands for constitutional and legal changes to enable free and fair elections under the slogan No Reforms, No Election.
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Treason Trial: High Court Explains Its Reasoning Behind Case-to-Answer Ruling
He told the court that the meeting ran for about three hours and that Lissu spoke for more than two hours.
According to Mnyika, the address covered the history of demands for electoral reforms, including the Nyalali Commission, the Kisanga Commission, the Bomani Committee and the Warioba Commission, as well as the party’s concerns about the 2019 local government elections and the 2020 General Election.
Mnyika also described CHADEMA’s engagement with President Samia Suluhu Hassan in May 2022 and subsequent talks between party representatives and a CCM team led by the party’s then vice chairperson Abdulrahman Kinana.
He said CHADEMA’s proposals included what it termed “minimum reforms” for the 2024 local government elections and the 2025 General Election.
He said the talks, which ran from June 2022 until May 31, 2023, ended with the government and CCM side saying the process for a new constitution should wait until after the 2025 General Election and that constitutional changes connected with the election could not be made during that period.
The hearing was adjourned at the request of the prosecution, which told the judges that security officials had raised concern because it was late. Justice Ndunguru directed the parties to return to the High Court on Monday, August 31, at 9:00 a.m., for Lissu to continue examining Mnyika.
