Dar es Salaam — The prosecution on Wednesday began cross-examining Tundu Lissu after the CHADEMA chairperson closed his defence in the High Court treason trial, pressing him on the remarks at the centre of the charge, his criticism of the government, and whether he caused a Jambo TV recording of his speech to be published online.
Lissu accepted that he delivered the April 3, 2025 speech to CHADEMA aspirants in the presence of journalists and that he wanted it to reach the public. But he rejected the proposition that he controlled the Jambo TV publication, saying the station’s employee, identified by the prosecution as PW17, made the decision to stream and publish the footage.
State Attorney Nassoro Katuga: “You wanted your speech to reach citizens?”
Tundu Lissu: “Very much. It was very important information.”
Katuga: “Who caused the publication?”
Lissu: “PW17. No one forced him to publish it. He could have decided not to publish.”
The questioning came after a two-day pause in the proceedings. Lissu had delivered a lengthy account of his political activism and election-reform arguments on Monday, August 24. There was no hearing on Tuesday because of the Maulid public holiday.
The August 26 session began with Lissu completing his final defence submissions before the court took a health break. State Attorney Ajuaye Zengeli then confirmed that the prosecution was ready to question him, with Principal State Attorney Nassoro Katuga taking the lead.
Identity and the law
Katuga began by establishing points that were not disputed: Lissu is a lawyer, has legal training, chairs CHADEMA, and has no legal immunity from prosecution by virtue of that position. Lissu also agreed that Tanzania became independent on December 9, 1961, and that courts exercise judicial authority without direction from another person.
The exchange quickly turned pointed when Katuga asked Lissu about awards and international bodies he had cited in his defence. Lissu said he had not produced documentary proof of the awards, adding that he had no obligation to do so unless the prosecution sought to challenge the account.
Katuga: “If you proceed that way, we will be here for seven days.”
Lissu: “I have spent a whole year in prison. Do you think I will fear your one week?”
Lissu then confirmed that he did not deny making the words attributed to him, including references to kukinukisha, mobilising rebellion and stopping the election. His defence, he said, was that the phrases had been extracted from a much longer speech and could only be understood in its full context.
Katuga: “Are those words yours or not?”
Lissu: “I have never denied them. They are very much mine. If you want to understand them, listen to the whole speech.”
Protest and the law
A significant part of Katuga’s questioning tested Lissu’s position that citizens can lawfully oppose election laws and government decisions through public mobilisation. Lissu said there were several avenues for opposing a law, including legal challenges, peaceful demonstrations and mobilising citizens to oppose it.
READ MORE: High Court Finds Lissu Has a Case to Answer as He Seeks Summons for President Samia
Asked to identify the legal basis for demonstrations, he cited Article 20(1) of the Constitution and referred to freedom of association and assembly. He also discussed earlier legal challenges to electoral laws, including cases associated with Julius Ishengoma Dyanabo and the late Reverend Christopher Mtikila’s campaign for independent candidates.
Lissu said legal protest did not mean every form of conduct was lawful. When Katuga referred to a prosecution witness who had allegedly planned to throw stones at people and obstruct the election, Lissu replied that such conduct would be not only a breach of peace but also a breach of the law.
But when Katuga suggested that threats to disrupt peace were directed at the government because police fall under the executive, Lissu rejected the framing.
Katuga: “When one threatens to breach the peace, who is being targeted?”
Lissu: “Your question is bad. If I threaten this gentleman,” Lissu said, pointing to Dr Rugemeleza Nshala in court, “does that mean I have threatened the police force? No.”
The question of an overt act
Katuga also examined Lissu’s interpretation of Section 39 of the Penal Code, the provision at the core of the treason charge. Lissu said it recognised two forms of alleged manifestation: publication of a writing or printing, and an overt act or deed. [1]
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Treason Trial: High Court Explains Its Reasoning Behind Case-to-Answer Ruling
Lissu’s position was that, in the circumstances of this case, both were acts and that he did not exercise control over Jambo TV’s online publishing platforms. The prosecution explored the concept of “constructive publication,” which Katuga described as a situation in which a person may have knowledge and control over a publication without physically possessing it.
Katuga: “Do you know the principle of constructive publication, where there is knowledge and control?”
Lissu: “I had no control over that Jambo publication.”
Lissu said PW17 had testified that the Jambo TV team livestreamed the event. He told the court that the prosecution’s case created a contradiction by alleging that Lissu published the recording while its own witness said the media team did so.
When Katuga again asked whether Lissu was prepared for the court to see the video in its entirety, Lissu replied that the prosecution should have produced it itself.
READ MORE: High Court of Tanzania to Rule Friday on Whether Tundu Lissu Must Answer Treason Charge
He referred to material the prosecution had previously sought to introduce, which the High Court had rejected, as “trash” and said he would not repair deficiencies in the state’s case.
Alleged animosity
Katuga asked whether Lissu’s account of past arrests, prosecutions and alleged mistreatment showed that he harboured resentment towards the government. Lissu said he did, but specified that his objection was to what he described as government oppression.
Katuga: “Would I be correct to say that you are a person with hatred for the government?”
Lissu: “I hate the government of this country because it has oppressed many people. I hate government oppression. Yes, I have hatred for the government, absolutely. They oppress people greatly.”
The prosecutor returned to Lissu’s allegation that IGP Camilius Wambura and DCI Ramadhani Kingai had acted against him for years and were connected to his arrest. Lissu said he had named both officials as defence witnesses because he wanted them to come to court and tell the truth.
Katuga: “You have named Wambura and Kingai as your witnesses. So they are good people?”
Lissu: “I have called them so that they come and tell the truth. Whether they are good or not is another matter. I know you will not bring them. They will be brought by the court.”
Scope of the speech
Katuga challenged Lissu’s claim that prosecution witnesses from Ruvuma were absent because they would expose the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest. The prosecutor said the fact that Lissu was arrested in Mbinga had not been disputed at the preliminary hearing.
READ MORE: Treason Trial: Lissu Cross-Examines Confidential Witness Involved in Livestreaming of His Meeting
Lissu replied that the location of the arrest was not the issue. He said the legal process and circumstances of the arrest remained disputed, and that the uncalled officers could have addressed them.
The prosecution also established that Lissu knew journalists were present when he spoke and that he did not place limits on the dissemination of the speech. Lissu said the reporters did not know the exact words he would use before he began speaking.
Katuga: “The journalists did not know beforehand that you would say, ‘tutakinukisha’ and ‘we will stop the election’?”
Lissu: “Correct. They did not know what I was going to say.”
Lissu also agreed that he wore CHADEMA combat-style party attire at the meeting and that witnesses who knew him identified him in the video. He did not contest that identification.
Unfinished questions
The latter part of Katuga’s cross-examination focused on evidence law, including the meaning of omissions and contradictions in witness statements, as well as Lissu’s references to the report of the Chande Commission on the October 29 violence.
When Katuga suggested that statements attributed to Lissu about protests and taking power demonstrated the development of treasonous intent, Lissu replied that such words were not included in the charge sheet.
Lissu: “If that is what you rely on, it should have been in the charge sheet. Why did you not put those words there?”
As the day ended, Katuga asked for Defence Exhibits D1 through D16. Justice Dunstan Ndunguru adjourned the case to Thursday, August 27, at 9:00 a.m., with the prosecution’s cross-examination still incomplete.
