Dar es Salaam — Tundu Lissu told the High Court on Thursday that he had “absolutely no faith” in the courts on electoral matters and had chosen what he called democratic alternatives to pursue reform, as state attorneys continued cross-examining him in his treason trial.
Questioned about his criticism of the election-justice system and his call for No Reforms, No Election, Lissu said his lack of faith concerned election disputes, rather than the courts generally.
He defended the campaign and the expressions kukinukisha and mobilising rebellion, which are central to the prosecution case, as democratic means of opposing an electoral process he considered unfair.
Nassoro Katuga: “You said you have no faith in the courts. So you have no faith?”
Tundu Lissu: “On these matters, the election matters we are discussing, I have absolutely no faith in the courts.”
Katuga: “You decided to seek another alternative?”
Lissu: “A democratic alternative.”
Katuga: “Is ‘kukinukisha’ a democratic means?”
Lissu: “Absolutely, it is a democratic means.”
Katuga: “And mobilising rebellion?”
Lissu: “A completely democratic means. Mwalimu Nyerere said rebellion against oppressive systems is entirely legitimate.”
READ MORE: Lissu Cross-examination Opens With Clash Over Speech, Publication and the Limits of Protest
The exchange was part of the second day of the prosecution’s cross-examination of Lissu, who is representing himself.
It followed the completion of his defence evidence on Wednesday, when he challenged the reliability of the state witnesses and argued that the prosecution had not proved either intent to threaten the government or publication of the disputed video.
The unpublished video argument
Lissu accepted during the hearing that he delivered the April 3, 2025 speech to CHADEMA aspirants and that journalists were present. He also accepted that he and other party leaders later asked journalists to leave for a private part of the meeting, while saying that the matters they wanted the public to know had already been made known.
Katuga sought to draw a distinction between the portions of the event that were open to media coverage and those conducted privately.
Katuga: “The parts you wanted published were the parts for which you allowed the journalists to remain?”
Lissu: “Yes.”
Katuga: “The things you did not want published were the reason you asked journalists to leave?”
Lissu: “Everything we wanted people to know, they knew.”
The prosecutor also returned to the absence of the actual video from the evidence before the court. Lissu agreed that the charge alleges publication of words in a video circulated by Jambo TV, but maintained that the recording and the alleged words could not be separated.
Katuga: “The words are something heard or seen?”
Lissu: “In this case, they are heard and seen. Under the law of evidence, what is seen is seen and what is heard is heard.”
Katuga: “In that video, are the words seen or heard?”
Lissu: “Where is that video now? Do I have it here?”
Katuga suggested that a witness who had watched a video or seen an event could still testify where a recording was unavailable. Lissu replied that the recording was the best means of resolving the dispute because the prosecution had relied on it and its witness, PW17, was said to have livestreamed it.
Tundu Lissu: “You cannot separate a video from the words. How can you? The words are in the video.”
He repeated his position that the prosecution had produced neither the video nor any other material proving the exact words and context it attributed to him. He also said that a witness’s credibility depended on the quality of their evidence rather than their appearance.
Anonymous witnesses under scrutiny
A substantial part of the day was devoted to Lissu’s challenge to the evidence of witnesses whose identities have been concealed under court-approved protective measures. Katuga asked whether Lissu’s statement that these witnesses might have been present in the courtroom was direct evidence, hearsay or speculation.
Lissu described it as an inference from the fact that, in his view, their identities were known only to the prosecution. He distinguished between the state’s description of them as “protected witnesses” and his own description, “concealed witnesses.”
Katuga: “Those P1 and P2 designations, are they not names?”
Lissu: “What person is called P2? I do not know P. Those are not names.”
Katuga: “Is it an opinion or evidence that those witnesses might have been in this courtroom?”
Lissu: “It is my evidence. How is it an opinion? You alone know them.”
The prosecutor pointed to the court’s earlier ruling on the arrangement for the witnesses. Lissu replied that the judges had seen the witnesses but did not know their actual names, and said the Criminal Procedure Act and the Evidence Act require a witness’s identity to be stated.
READ MORE: High Court Finds Lissu Has a Case to Answer as He Seeks Summons for President Samia
Katuga also put to Lissu that the state witnesses had said their alleged plans for election-related violence followed his words. Lissu said he did not know the witnesses and could not vouch for their truthfulness, repeating his defence position that their testimony was unreliable.
Katuga: “The witnesses said the acts they planned arose from your words.”
Lissu: “How would I know? I do not know them or recognise them. How can I say they are telling the truth?”
Election law and police investigations
The prosecution asked Lissu whether the April 3 meeting had required police permission or prior notification. Lissu answered that it was an internal meeting held six months before the election, and asserted that internal party meetings require neither a permit nor notice to police.
When Ajuaye Zengeli, the lead state attorney, read provisions of the Political Parties Act and Police General Orders, Lissu maintained that the cited provisions concerned public meetings and election campaigning rather than the meeting at issue.
Ajuaye Zengeli: “Did you give notice to the police?”
Lissu: “How could I give notice when I was not at a campaign meeting, and I have already told you that I was not holding a public meeting?”
Lissu also maintained that the National Electoral Commission, rather than the government, administers election law. When Zengeli asked whether opposing an election was a legal requirement, he answered that CHADEMA wanted the election not to proceed, distinguishing that from challenging results in an otherwise valid election.
The exchanges came after Lissu’s defence had challenged the work of police investigators, including their handling of witness statements and their conclusions about the alleged offence. Katuga questioned him about exhibits D1 to D16, which Lissu had used in cross-examining prosecution witnesses.
READ MORE: Tundu Lissu Treason Trial: High Court Explains Its Reasoning Behind Case-to-Answer Ruling
Lissu accepted that some matters he raised from the exhibits were omissions rather than contradictions. He nevertheless maintained that other differences, including a witness describing the matter as generic criminality in a written statement but as treason in court, were contradictions of substance.
Katuga: “The absence of that matter from the statement, is it a contradiction or an omission?”
Lissu: “An omission.”
Katuga: “So what contradiction is there in this exhibit?”
Lissu: “In court he said it was treason, but in his statement he said it was criminal offences.”
Past persecution claims
The state attorneys also challenged Lissu’s testimony that he has faced politically motivated mistreatment from senior police figures for 24 years. Katuga asked whether he had ever filed a malicious-prosecution case, to which Lissu replied that the absence of such a suit did not, in his view, disprove his account.
Job Mrema, another state attorney, then questioned Lissu about the meaning and legal basis of activism, his previous criminal cases, and his account of the 2017 shooting. Lissu said activism involved efforts to fight for a cause and cited constitutional rights provisions as creating space for such work.
READ MORE: High Court of Tanzania to Rule Friday on Whether Tundu Lissu Must Answer Treason Charge
When Mrema asked whether Lissu had reported the shooting to police, Lissu said he was severely injured at the time and later approached a regional police commander in Dodoma after returning to the country, but said police did not interview him about the attack.
Job Mrema: “When you receive information about threats, is it right to report it to the police?”
Lissu: “It is right if the threats do not come from the police themselves. If police are threatening you, and you go to police to report that police are threatening you, you would be mad.”
Lissu also sparred with Zengeli over the meaning of the video as a medium and the responsibilities of the court. When Zengeli said the court ultimately decides whether a person has committed an offence, Lissu answered that it could do so after the person had been properly brought before it.
The hearing ended after prison officials indicated that the day had run late. Justice Ndunguru said the panel had expected the prosecution to finish its questions, then adjourned the case until Friday morning, August 28, for the cross-examination to continue.
