Dar es Salaam — A CHADEMA leader testifying for Tundu Lissu accepted on Friday that the party chairperson wanted his April 3, 2025 speech to reach Tanzanians and that its purpose was to press the government to make legal changes to the electoral system, as the prosecution continued to test the defence account in Lissu’s treason trial.
Amani Golugwa, CHADEMA’s deputy secretary general for Mainland Tanzania, also agreed that Lissu used forceful and persuasive language. But he maintained that journalists, including those from Jambo TV and The Chanzo, independently decided whether to livestream and publish the address, and that Lissu did not himself disseminate the words on which the prosecution relies.
The exchanges are significant because the charge alleges that Lissu formed an intention to threaten the Government of the United Republic and manifested it by publishing specified remarks through Jambo TV. Golugwa’s cross-examination did not finish; the High Court adjourned the case to Monday, September 7, at 9 a.m.
From speech to publication
Principal State Attorney Nassoro Katuga brought the cross-examination back to the April 3 meeting, which Golugwa said was an internal CHADEMA gathering to explain the party’s No Reforms, No Election policy to aspirants.
Golugwa reiterated that he had invited Lissu to address aspirants but did not write or see the speech in advance. He said senior party leaders, media organisations and aspirants attended, while the party did not appoint a chairperson or a guest of honour for the gathering.
READ MORE: Lissu Defence Brings Election-observer Claims and Arrest Accounts Into Treason Trial
Katuga established that journalists were present while Lissu spoke and that the chairperson wanted the address to go to the public. Golugwa said, however, that the party did not give reporters a text in advance and did not dictate how they should cover the meeting.
Nassoro Katuga: “Did Lissu want his speech to reach the public?”
Amani Golugwa: “Yes, he wanted it to.”
Katuga: “If he had not wanted those words to reach the public, did he have the ability to remove Jambo TV journalists?”
Golugwa: “He did not have the ability to remove journalists.”
Katuga: “Did he have the ability not to say the words in the charge sheet?”
Golugwa: “If he had wanted not to say them, he would not have said them.”
Katuga suggested that Lissu had used Jambo TV and The Chanzo to convey information to the public. Golugwa rejected that description, replying that several outlets had attended and that the decision to publish rested with the news organisations.
Katuga: “Would I be right to say Lissu used Jambo TV and The Chanzo to deliver or disseminate information to the public?”
Golugwa: “There were many media outlets; do not single them out. But you are not right, because he did not disseminate information himself.”
Golugwa said that, to his understanding, a journalist who broadcasts a speech is the person who publishes it. He said journalists would know the technical means of stopping a live broadcast if they decided not to carry information.
READ MORE: Lissu Defence Says CHADEMA’s Election Campaign Grew From Alleged Poll Failures
The witness nevertheless accepted that the objective of the address was to push the government towards legal and electoral changes, and that the government has policy responsibility for such changes.
Katuga: “Was Lissu’s speech aimed at pressing the government to make changes in the electoral system?”
Golugwa: “That is true.”
Katuga: “Did he use strong, persuasive and pressuring words?”
Golugwa: “That is true.”
Observer reports challenged
State Attorney Ignas Mwinuka questioned Golugwa about reports he had cited the previous day from regional and international bodies, including SADC, the European Union, Commonwealth-linked sources, the African Union and the Thabo Mbeki Foundation.
Mwinuka asked whether Golugwa was the custodian or author of the documents, whether he had been asked to translate them from English, and whether an individual’s interpretation could affect their content.
Golugwa said the documents were public, that he had copies, and that he could translate English adequately, while accepting that a poor translation could alter meaning.
He clarified that he had referred to a Commonwealth statement rather than a report, and said he did not remember the exact title of the Thabo Mbeki Foundation document. He also said he had not read an East African report on the election.
READ MORE: Mnyika Rejects Bid to Link CHADEMA’s Reform Campaign to Election Violence
The prosecution put a paragraph of the Thabo Mbeki Foundation document to the witness and said it described the organisation as following events, rather than acting as an election observer. Golugwa asked to read the first paragraph too and said that, in his view, following an election is the work of an observer.
Katuga: “They were following events, not observers, were they?”
Golugwa: “The work of an observer is to follow [events].”
Katuga also identified an arithmetic error in Golugwa’s previous evidence on the presidential results. Golugwa had said the ruling-party candidate received 98.6 per cent while opposition candidates shared 2.4 per cent; on Friday he accepted the figures did not add up and corrected the first figure to 97.6 per cent.
Katuga: “What remains when 2.4 is taken from 98.6?”
Golugwa: “The correct figure is 97.6 and 2.4. Yesterday was human error, but it shows the large number of false CCM votes.”
Election complaints and legal remedies
The state also questioned the basis of Golugwa’s testimony about alleged irregularities in the 2019, 2020 and 2024 elections.
He accepted that he had not been a candidate in 2019 or 2020, though he said that in 2020 he worked as a campaign manager and returning officer and was close to candidates while nomination forms were handled.
READ MORE: Mnyika Tells High Court Lissu’s Speech Carried CHADEMA Policy, Not a Private Plot
Mwinuka asked whether complaints over electoral decisions could be filed with appeals committees and courts. Golugwa agreed that such avenues existed, but said CHADEMA did not use court proceedings in the instances put to him.
He said party complaints had been raised with the electoral authorities and that appeals were, in his words, dismissed because of the “nonsense” and misconduct he alleged characterised the process.
Ignas Mwinuka: “You recognise there is a court if you are dissatisfied with electoral matters?”
Golugwa: “I recognise it.”
Mwinuka: “Why did you not go?”
Golugwa: “We did not use that avenue, but it does not remove the truth that the election was very unlawful and very bad.”
Katuga later pressed Golugwa to identify particular officials who allegedly altered CHADEMA nomination forms, shut offices to prevent candidates from submitting forms, or excluded party agents from polling places.
Golugwa said he had not named individual officials or agents, describing the conduct instead as a general pattern that affected party members.
Katuga: “Did you tell the court of a particular CHADEMA agent who did not find their sworn document?”
Golugwa: “I explained the events generally — the nonsense our agents were subjected to by election supervisors.”
Golugwa maintained that he had seen, read about or heard of comparable difficulties across several elections.
READ MORE: Court Allows Lissu to Re-examine Himself as Mnyika Opens Defence Case
He said CHADEMA did not participate in the 2025 election as a consequence of its No Reforms, No Election position, while also accepting it had been barred after the party’s secretary general did not sign the electoral code of conduct. He agreed that those were different propositions.
Credibility, interest and party resolutions
Katuga put to Golugwa that he had an interest in the case because CHADEMA’s Central Committee had resolved on August 29, 2025, to direct leaders to put their energy into defending Lissu.
Golugwa confirmed the resolution and said the party had committed “a lot of effort” to the defence.
The prosecutor also contrasted Golugwa’s description of the charge as politically motivated with Lissu’s broader allegation that the Inspector General of Police and Director of Criminal Investigations had a long-running personal vendetta against him. Golugwa said the two accounts were compatible, rather than contradictory.
Katuga: “You say this is a political case to stop the accused from pursuing political change, while he says IGP and DCI have built a grudge against him. Which of you is lying?”
Golugwa: “I have said they are similar, so I cannot separate them. It is indeed a political case.”
Katuga questioned whether a meeting of more than 1,000 CHADEMA General Assembly delegates could properly authorise a policy affecting the electorate as a whole. Golugwa said the delegates represented the party’s districts, constituencies, regions and zones, and maintained that members could still be educated about a resolution they had approved.
Treason allegation
During the afternoon session, Katuga asked Golugwa why he described the charge as false. Golugwa said he relied in part on what he said was a UN report issued in November 2025, but added that it was also his own opinion that one person could not commit treason alone.
READ MORE: Lissu Tells Treason Court He Has No Faith in Judges on Election Disputes
He was shown Section 39(2)(d) of the Penal Code. Golugwa said he was not a lawyer and could not interpret the provision as expertly as a state advocate. When Katuga suggested that one person might incite others, Golugwa replied that a person alone could not incite himself.
The prosecution also put constitutional provisions on the independence of the electoral commission to the witness. Golugwa read provisions stating that the commission is independent in exercising its functions and is not obliged to follow the direction of any person or political party.
He said that, in practice, he did not consider the commission independent, arguing that the power to appoint its leaders and members was concentrated in the President. He accepted he had not personally filed a court case on the point, though he said other CHADEMA members had.
Katuga: “Have you ever seen the commission interfered with in its decisions?”
Golugwa: “Yes. You take me to the provisions but leave out the provisions on appointment. The words saying the commission is independent are there, but in reality it is not independent.”
The often combative exchange produced several light moments. Katuga suggested Golugwa had repeatedly used the term ushenzi — broadly, conduct he considered disgraceful or outrageous — and called him a “witness of ushenzi.” Golugwa replied that he was a witness describing conduct that had actually occurred in elections.
Katuga: “You have used the word ushenzi many times. So you are a witness of ushenzi.”
Golugwa: “I am a witness who described the real ushenzi that occurred in various elections.”
Another exchange drew laughter when Katuga challenged Golugwa for calling state lawyers malicious. Golugwa replied: “It is true you have a bad heart and an ugly face too.”
The court adjourned shortly after 5 p.m. when Katuga said the prosecution had further questions. Lissu said he had no objection, and Justice Ndunguru scheduled the continuation of Golugwa’s cross-examination for Monday at 9 a.m.
