Dar es Salaam — CHADEMA secretary general John Mnyika on Tuesday rejected prosecution attempts to link the party’s No Reforms, No Election campaign and Tundu Lissu’s April 2025 speech to later election violence, telling the High Court that the policy was meant to pursue constitutional and legal reform through democratic means.

Mnyika, the second defence witness in Lissu’s treason trial, said the party’s Central Committee adopted the position in December 2024, months before the April 3, 2025 meeting at which Lissu made the disputed remarks. 

He said the policy had been approved by the party’s governing organs and that its purpose was to seek a free, fair and lawful election, not to direct supporters to commit violence.

The prosecution put to Mnyika that people had planned to disrupt the 2025 election, burn polling stations, damage property and harm voters after Lissu’s remarks. Mnyika said he had not spoken to anyone arrested over those events and could not say whether any such acts arose from CHADEMA’s position.

Nassoro Katuga: “Was there an attempt to stop the election by burning polling stations and causing disorder?”

John Mnyika: “What I know is that killings took place.”

Katuga: “Were people’s property burned?”

Mnyika: “I know things were burnt. I do not know who burnt them.”

The day-long hearing was the continuation of the state’s cross-examination of Mnyika, who appeared in a red T-shirt bearing the biblical passage Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

‘Policy adopted before April speech’

Katuga began by questioning Mnyika about CHADEMA’s submissions to Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on electoral reform. Mnyika said party representatives had been stopped from presenting proposed constitutional changes and that he had been cut off while speaking.

READ MORE: Mnyika Tells High Court Lissu’s Speech Carried CHADEMA Policy, Not a Private Plot

Katuga suggested that the party adopted its plan to stop the election after the parliamentary committee rejected its proposals. Mnyika disputed the sequence, saying the Central Committee had approved the No Reforms, No Election resolution on December 2, 2024, before that parliamentary engagement.

Nassoro Katuga: “Was the strategy to stop the election not the party’s plan?”

John Mnyika: “It had already been adopted on December 2, 2024 by the Central Committee in the ‘No Reforms, No Election’ resolution. No reforms, no election.”

Mnyika said the party was ready to participate in the 2025 election but wanted changes to the constitutional and legal framework. He said all parties and citizens had the right to take part in an election that was free, fair and lawful.

Katuga pressed him on what it meant, in practical terms, to prevent an election through democratic means. Mnyika said one possible means was a boycott, explaining that if most people did not participate, an election would not occur in any meaningful sense.

Katuga: “What democratic means could be used to stop someone?”

Mnyika: “If you go alone to vote while other people do not go, there will be no election.”

The prosecutor asked whether other registered political parties had their own members, ideologies and constitutional right to participate. Mnyika said he could not speak for those parties, but maintained that a CHADEMA member had the right to oppose an election the party considered oppressive or unlawful.

Words, intent and the public

The prosecution returned repeatedly to words attributed to Lissu, including references to kukinukisha, stopping the election and mobilising rebellion. Mnyika maintained that the language was addressed to the public rather than the government, and was political language calling for resistance to an election that CHADEMA considered neither free nor fair.

Katuga: “When the chairperson said ‘tutakinukisha’ and ‘we will stop the election,’ was he targeting the government to force changes in the laws and Constitution?”

Mnyika: “No. We did not target the government. Our words were directed to the public and citizens in general.”

READ MORE: Court Allows Lissu to Re-examine Himself as Mnyika Opens Defence Case

Asked whether the public had a right to interpret and act on the words as it wished, Mnyika replied that interpretation was a right, but said it was not a right for anyone to cut voters’ fingers or commit other unlawful acts.

Katuga: “Is it also the public’s right to become incited and cut voters’ fingers?”

Mnyika: “It is not a right.”

Mnyika told the court he had heard that some property and infrastructure, including Bus Rapid Transit stations, had been damaged or burnt during the election period. However, he said he did not know who was responsible and distinguished his knowledge of fires from proof that particular people had set them.

He said he understood Lissu’s speech as advocating democratic means, and told the court that CHADEMA’s policy did not amount to a plan to break the law.

Peace and the treason allegation

Katuga sought to establish that a threat to disrupt peace is necessarily a threat to the President and state institutions responsible for public order. Mnyika disagreed, saying not every threat to peace amounts to a threat against the President or the security forces.

Katuga: “If one threatens to breach peace, is that a threat to the President and his institutions?”

Mnyika: “That is not true. Not every threat to peace is a threat to the President and her institutions.”

Mnyika accepted that courts are the final authority under the Constitution in determining guilt or innocence. He added that Tanzania is also governed by international agreements and other laws, before agreeing that a court would decide whether the evidence in Lissu’s case was sufficient for a conviction.

READ MORE: Lissu Tells Treason Court He Has No Faith in Judges on Election Disputes

The prosecution questioned his claim that previous cases involving CHADEMA leaders had been fabricated or politically driven. Mnyika said cases he had cited were withdrawn or ended in acquittals, but accepted that the DPP can revive a withdrawn case.

He also maintained that party leaders need not necessarily go to court to pursue every alleged breach of political rights. He cited a case involving journalist and politician Saed Kubenea as authority for his statement that political rights may also be pursued through political means, though the legal significance of that reference was not resolved during the hearing.

The prosecution also returned to the April 3 meeting at CHADEMA headquarters, asking Mnyika whether it had a chairperson, agenda, minutes and a defined purpose. Mnyika said it was an internal party meeting with a subject rather than a formal agenda, and that not every party meeting has a presiding chairperson or minutes.

He distinguished between an “agenda,” which he described as a list of matters to be discussed, and a “subject,” which he described as a particular matter being discussed. The exchange briefly turned light when he handed Katuga’s dictionary back after reading both definitions and said the terms had different meanings.

Mnyika repeated that the party invited journalists to attend the opening segment but did not instruct them whether to broadcast the event. He said a later part of the meeting was held privately after media personnel had left.

Questions on party finances

After the afternoon break, State Attorney Cathbert Mbiringe shifted questioning to CHADEMA’s finances and the role of its secretary general. Mnyika confirmed that the party had publicly reported receiving about Sh302 million in small public contributions, known as tonetone, by the last reported count.

READ MORE: Lissu Cross-examination Opens With Clash Over Speech, Publication and the Limits of Protest

He said the money was earmarked for specific activities, including the party’s Governing Council, and could not simply be redirected to salaries or allowances. Mnyika said the party’s accounts were public and authorities could investigate if they suspected money laundering.

Cathbert Mbiringe: “Would you not see those funds being used for money laundering?”

Mnyika: “The authorities exist, and our money passes through known accounts. If there is a problem, action should be taken. We make the accounts public.”

Mnyika said he is CHADEMA’s accounting officer, responsible for authorising expenditure and receiving financial reports, but does not personally receive money or make every payment. 

He said the party had paid some allowances in the previous month but also had outstanding obligations, citing a 309-day prohibition on the party’s activities and the suspension of its public funding.

State Attorney Ajuaye Zengeli questioned Mnyika about the dictionary meaning of uasi, or rebellion, and suggested that it involved unlawfully overthrowing authority. Mnyika said words must also be understood in political context and that a dictionary does not exhaust all meanings in Kiswahili.

Ajuaye Zengeli: “When you planned to mobilise rebellion, did you plan to break the law according to this dictionary?”

Mnyika: “When we planned No Reforms, No Election, we did not use a dictionary. We did not plan any crime.”

Job Mrema later put a similar question about the authority of BAKITA, the Kiswahili national council, in producing a dictionary. Mnyika agreed that BAKITA is legally authorised to carry out linguistic research but said it is not the only institution capable of doing so.

Cross-examination had not concluded when the court rose. Katuga asked to continue the following day, and Justice Dunstan Ndunguru adjourned the case to Wednesday, September 2, with Mnyika still under oath.