Dar es Salaam — The prosecution on Tuesday asked the High Court to convict Tundu Lissu of treason, arguing that 17 state witnesses established that he intended to incite the public to intimidate the executive and that the disputed words were published through Jambo TV.

The court is scheduled to deliver its judgment on November 6, 2026.

State Attorney Nassoro Katuga told the three-judge panel that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

He reduced the charge to three principal questions: whether Lissu owed allegiance to the United Republic, whether he formed an intention to incite the public to intimidate the executive, and whether he manifested that intention by uttering and publishing the words cited in the indictment.

The prosecution’s closing argument followed Lissu’s completion of his final submission on September 28. Lissu had argued that the indictment was defective, the evidence was unreliable and the disputed words did not constitute treason or another criminal offence.

Wording of charge

Katuga said the relevant provision of the Penal Code refers to a person who forms an intention to instigate any person, or group of persons, to intimidate the executive.

He acknowledged that the indictment uses the word “public” rather than naming an individual or group, but argued that the term was used to make the charge clear in light of the evidence the state intended to present.

READ MORE: Lissu Completes Final Defence, Tells Judges Treason Charge Ends in Conviction or Acquittal

He also defended the charge’s use of “deed” and its decision to rely on the alleged uttering and distribution of the words, rather than every alternative form of manifestation listed in the provision.

He said the word “or” in the law meant that the prosecution could select one form of manifestation instead of combining all the alternatives in the indictment. Katuga added: “We used the word public to make the charge clear.”

Katuga cited the Interpretation of Laws Act and argued that the alternatives connected by “or” should not be treated as cumulative requirements. He said the charge was intended to inform Lissu of the case he had to meet.

The prosecution also argued that the charge could be clarified or cured by evidence where necessary. It referred to a Court of Appeal decision which, Katuga said, recognised that evidence may explain an element not fully set out in a charge.

Established intention

The prosecution argued that the words cited in the indictment, including references to mobilising rebellion, disrupting the election and causing serious disorder, showed an intention to compel the government to act in the way Lissu wanted.

Katuga relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses George Bagyemu and ACP Amin Mahamba, who said the alleged statements were intended to intimidate the government because it is responsible for enforcing the law, maintaining peace and overseeing an election conducted under the Constitution and electoral legislation.

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

He also relied on parts of the defence evidence in which Lissu and other witnesses acknowledged that the executive and police have responsibilities relating to law enforcement, public order and security.

Katuga argued that threatening to disrupt an election or disturb public order therefore amounted to threatening the executive, whether or not the government was actually frightened by the words. He said: “Whether the executive was intimidated or not is immaterial.”

The prosecution further argued that the words were intelligible and had a meaning that could be assessed by the court. Katuga cited a dictionary definition of “rebellion” as conduct by a group seeking to change a country’s political system or oppose those in authority.

He said the evidence of defence witness Brenda Rupia also supported the prosecution’s interpretation of the slogan and the disputed statements.

‘Publication did not require video’

Katuga argued that Lissu’s intention was manifested in two ways. First, the words were communicated to people attending the April 3, 2025 meeting. Secondly, they were broadcast to the wider public through Jambo TV’s YouTube channel.

He said PW17, the Jambo TV journalist who attended the meeting, testified that the event was livestreamed. Katuga argued that the question before the court was not who organised the meeting or invited the journalists, but whether Lissu’s words were made public.

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

The prosecution maintained that Lissu knew the meeting was being livestreamed and had previously said that journalists were invited when CHADEMA wanted information to reach the public.

Katuga argued that this evidence showed that Lissu intended the message to reach the public, even if he did not personally operate the camera or upload the footage.

The defence had criticised the prosecution for failing to produce the video that it had listed as evidence. Katuga responded that the video was electronic documentary evidence, but its absence did not prevent the state from proving what was said through credible oral testimony.

“The absence of the video does not mean that the witnesses cannot prove that they heard the words on Jambo TV’s YouTube channel,” he told the court.

Justice Dunstan Ndunguru intervened to clarify the point, saying the video had been intended to support the testimony of witnesses who said they heard the words. Katuga relied on Court of Appeal authorities which, he said, establish that credible oral evidence may prove a fact without documentary evidence.

Attacks on witnesses

The prosecution described the inconsistencies identified by Lissu as minor discrepancies that did not go to the root of the case. Katuga argued that variations in testimony are normal because witnesses describe what they saw and heard from their own perspectives, and may show that they were not coached before testifying.

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

He rejected the defence argument that police witnesses were not competent because they worked in the same office or had been involved in the investigation. Katuga said no law disqualifies police officers from testifying and that the relevant question is whether their evidence is truthful.

The prosecution also defended the witnesses who had testified with their identities withheld. Katuga argued that even an accomplice is a competent witness under the Evidence Act, and said concerns about a witness’s interest affect the assessment of credibility rather than competence.

He said the witnesses’ evidence, including the accounts of those who said they were influenced by Lissu’s words, was sufficient when considered together with the testimony of the police officers and parts of the defence evidence.

Katuga concluded that the prosecution’s 17 witnesses had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He asked the judges to reject the defence’s criticisms and convict Lissu as charged.

After the submission, Justice Ndunguru asked Lissu whether he had a rejoinder. Lissu replied that he had completed his argument the previous day and had nothing to add. The judges then thanked the parties and adjourned the case for judgment.

The court fixed November 6, 2026, for the decision.

The ruling will determine whether the panel accepts the prosecution’s interpretation of the treason provision and its evidence on intention, publication and intimidation, or Lissu’s arguments that the charge and proof were legally insufficient.