Dar es Salaam — Tundu Lissu on Monday completed his final submission in the High Court treason trial, urging the three-judge panel to acquit him if it finds the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is scheduled to begin its final submissions on Tuesday, September 29, at 9 a.m.

Lissu told the court that a treason charge has no lesser alternative offence. He said the panel should convict and sentence him if it found treason proved, but acquit him if the evidence did not meet the criminal standard of proof.

“If you find there is treason, do not hesitate to convict and punish me appropriately,” he said. “If you find there is no treason, do not hesitate to acquit me.”

His argument, which began on September 23, concluded with a wide-ranging challenge to the evidence, the investigation and the decision to bring a criminal case. The judges did not rule on any of the issues on Monday.

Seven questions

Lissu said the prosecution had failed to establish seven propositions he had put before the court: that he convened the April 3, 2025 meeting; that he invited journalists to it; that he intended to incite a person or group to obstruct the 2025 election in order to intimidate the executive; that the alleged words disclose an offence; that spoken words are a deed under the treason provision; that he published the words on Jambo TV’s YouTube channel; and that the government was intimidated.

READ MORE: Lissu Tells High Court: Jambo TV Staff, Not I, Published the Disputed Video

He argued that the prosecution had therefore failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case. Tundu Lissu: “On all seven questions, the prosecution failed completely.”

Lissu then contended that the record raised further doubts about the prosecution case. He argued that the decision to open a treason file was initially made by the first prosecution witness, police officer George Bagyemu, without guidance from a superior, legal advice, or consultation with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service or other security authorities.

He said Bagyemu’s evidence was inconsistent with that of ACP Amin Mahamba about whether a lawyer from the DPP’s office was part of the investigation team. Lissu also pointed to differences in the officers’ accounts of whether the alleged intention was to intimidate the executive or overthrow the government.

Those are Lissu’s characterisations of the investigation and the evidence. Neither the prosecution nor the court responded to them on Monday.

Secret witnesses, missing video

Lissu also challenged the reliability of the prosecution witnesses who testified with their identities withheld. He said, excluding PW17, the witnesses had first been arrested as suspects over alleged plans for violence, then became prosecution witnesses after their own files were withdrawn.

READ MORE: Lissu Says Treason Case Rests on Police Inference as Final Submission Continues

He argued that their position gave them an interest in supporting the prosecution. He also cited what he described as inconsistencies in their accounts, including evidence on religion, CHADEMA membership, occupation and the words used at the meeting.

“What do you expect from witnesses of that kind?” Lissu asked the court.

Lissu contrasted those witnesses with the five defence witnesses, all senior CHADEMA figures who, he said, were present at the April 3 meeting and gave a consistent account of its purpose and context. He said the prosecution’s PW17, a Jambo TV journalist who recorded the meeting, had also supported the key elements of the defence account.

He further criticised the prosecution for not producing in court the video footage and memory-card material it had listed at the preliminary hearing. Lissu said witnesses gave different descriptions of the footage’s length, while no video was tendered for the panel to examine.

“They talked about video, video, video, but showed not a single one in court,” Lissu observed.

READ MORE: Lissu Challenges Treason Charge Wording as His Final Submission Runs Into Second Day

Lissu noted that an earlier attempt to introduce video evidence had been rejected on October 23, 2025. He argued that the prosecution had taken no later step to cure the evidentiary problem, although the alleged statements had remained disputed throughout the trial.

Bypassing administrative procedures

In a further submission, Lissu argued that the case should not have been brought before the criminal court before available administrative procedures had been used. He referred to the Political Parties Act and said the Registrar of Political Parties had intervened after CHADEMA began its No Reforms, No Election campaign.

Lissu said evidence from CHADEMA secretary-general John Mnyika was that the registrar wrote to him after Lissu’s arrest, and that Mnyika responded that the issue was already being addressed through the treason case. Lissu said that evidence was not challenged in cross-examination.

He cited Section 4(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and a Court of Appeal decision which, he argued, require available civil or administrative remedies to be exhausted before criminal proceedings are invoked. He invited the High Court to dismiss the case on that basis.

Lissu also argued that the trial arose from a political and constitutional disagreement over elections, which should be resolved through political rather than criminal processes. 

READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Closes Defence After Saying DCI Kingai Will Not Testify

He cited earlier court decisions involving Freeman Mbowe, Reverend Christopher Mtikila and Said Kubenea as authorities which he said required the courts to tolerate even harsh political criticism and avoid intervening in political disputes. Tundu Lissu: “This is taking politics too far.”

Final appeal to the panel

Lissu ended by referring to character evidence given by his defence witnesses, who described him as a democratic leader, human-rights defender and a person of integrity. He said that evidence was incompatible with the prosecution’s case that he was a traitor.

He also quoted Nelson Mandela’s 1964 Rivonia Trial statement about opposing both white domination and black domination, saying he had spent much of his life fighting for rights and democracy and would continue to stand by that ideal. Tundu Lissu: “I am a patriot. I am not a traitor.”

Lissu thanked the judges for hearing his defence and said the state attorneys had worked hard despite what he called a hopeless case. Justice Dunstan Ndunguru then adjourned the case to Tuesday morning for the prosecution’s closing submission. 

State Attorney Nassoro Katuga said the prosecution expected to finish that day.